Home/Blog
For decades now those of us trying to publish papers which depart from the climate doom-and-gloom narrative have noticed a trend toward both biased and sloppy peer review of research submitted for publication in scientific journals.
Part of the problem is the increased specialization of climate science (and other sciences in general), so that there are relatively few peers who know enough about what they are reviewing to pass expert judgement on it. Instead, they simply give the paper author(s) the benefit of the doubt. I have been in this position many times when reviewing a paper for publication. This leads to group-think, as the number of experts in any sub-discipline dwindles.
If the conclusions of the paper support a more alarmist narrative on the seriousness of anthropogenic global warming, the less thorough will be the peer review. I am now totally convinced of that. If the paper is skeptical in tone, it endures levels of criticism that alarmist papers do not experience. I have had at least one paper rejected based upon a single reviewer who obviously didn’t read the paper…he criticized claims not even made in the paper.
A recent paper published in what is arguably the world’s most prestigious science journal, Nature, claimed that the oceans have been warming considerably faster than estimates made from actual thermometer measurements, which remain rather sparse even in the Argo float era.
Enter Nic Lewis, who along with Judith Curry has been publishing some of the most thorough estimates of climate sensitivity based upon the observational data and the usual assumed anthropogenic climate forcings (mostly increasing CO2). Despite not being a credentialed climate scientist, Mr. Lewis immediately identified a significant error in the paper, substantially altering the conclusions, which the authors now acknowledge.
The good news is that this is a case where the error was caught, and admitted to.
The bad news is that the peer review process, presumably involving credentialed climate scientists, should have caught the error before publication.
AGW theory has simply hi jacked natural climate variation which means the climate sensitivity issue to CO2 is a non issue.
In addition they are using the completely false argument that the recent ocean warming is some how connected with CO2. The reality is it was connected to an extremely active sun until year 2005.
I am thankful for this prolonged solar minimum and weakening geo magnetic field so we can really find out what the climate is or is not sensitive to.
The test provided by nature not man is now on and we shall see.
“Global cooling has started, and it will be here for sometime to come. All the factors that control the climate are now in, or going toward a colder phase.”
– Salvatore del Prete, December 31, 2010
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/12/dessler-and-spencer-debate-cloud-feedback/#comment-8257
David,
Please explain how your comment contributes to the discussion of the original blog essay!
Since you will be unable to do that, please apologize to Sal. D Prete for your typical ad hominem remark.
Since you are not going to do that either, please accept my opinion of you being a mule’s ancestor as being proved.
Best wishes,
Lewis
That mule’s ancestor thing was a rib cracking moment …..LMAO!
SdP has been wrong since forever. He deserves to be called out for all of it.
THink I’m wrong? Prove it.
I have to admit….it seems fair game to point out prior predictions. After all, I do see lists of climate predictions of doom that don’t come true.
Bryan Knauss says:
I have to admit.it seems fair game to point out prior predictions. After all, I do see lists of climate predictions of doom that dont come true.
___________________________________-
Climate predictions did predict rising temperature, rising sealevel an decreasing sea-ice area. Many years before.
It all came true. And will go on coming true.
Salvatore del Prete predicted in 2010 that the climate was cooling. Indeed, in the years following, only in 2016 and 2017 was the mean anomaly greater than that of 2010. The essentially flat-line trend from 1998 to 2018 confirms the suspicion of most reasonably minded individuals that predictions of catastrophic temperature rises based on current data were irresponsible.
It’s unfortunate that many on this blog have firm set views and have almost become incapable of reason, and seek instead to ridicule and belittle those opposed to their opinion. If the simple explanation of AGW is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which traps heat, then failure of a steady temperature rise since 2010 in the presence of increasing CO2 deserves a simple explanation as well, or is proof that the original premise is false, or shows that there is insufficient data to make a conclusion. In which case we would all do well to be prudent in forecasting, and admit that either future cooling or warming is equally likely.
That the IPCC aims to reduce warming to fractions of a degree by marginally reducing the rate of increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration is ludicrous, and its incompetency should be exposed by all conscientious scientists.
Mac says:
Salvatore del Prete predicted in 2010 that the climate was cooling. Indeed,….
___________________________________
Indeed it was warming.
GISTEMP +.40/dec
Had CRUT +.31/dec
UAH +.28/dec
RS S +.32/dec
Much more than average.
And although starting year 2010 was quite warm.
David A,
Does this mean you will finally accept IPCC’s numerous prediction/projection failures?
Snicker……….
Two of the worst examples of this bias are Harde’s disallowed reply to Kohler (https://hhgpc0.wixsite.com/harde-2017-censored) and the complete denial of Pat Franks work on error progression.There are many more examples but these take the cake.
Academic journals are caught up in massive hoax involving 20 FAKE papers on ‘dog rape culture’, ‘a conceptual penis’ and re-printing a version of MEIN KAMPF.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6239071/Academic-journals-caught-massive-hoax-involving-20-FAKE-papers.html
These are not so ‘academic’.
I believe that’s a hockey stick graph on that paper!
SST readings since the beginning of ARGO (2002 I believe) have remained consistent IMO. The main outlier is the most recent 2016 warming where it seems to give too much credence to Arctic and tropical SST readings (a serious bias). 3600 ARGO buoys that continuously dive to 2000 meters over long periods of time still leaves a huge gap in recording global surface temps within a daily “snapshot”. I think the ARGO system is garbling up the SST data and analysis even more than hoped. We are still far from getting a true snapshot of global temperature trends. There’s way too much movement in the entire climate system to point a single finger of causality at an overall 0.0001 atmospheric mole fraction change over the past 150 years IMO.
“I think the ARGO system is garbling up the SST data and analysis even more than hoped. ”
What is this opinion based on?
Too much time and movement between each individual reading. Not all readings come at the exact same time. It’s not a real snapshot that holds any global reading in place. That’s why there is so much variability.
Nate,
I think Patrick explained it adequately. A true average temperature is impossible unless you can place identically accurate thermometers at every point on the planet.
I didn’t know the ARGO buoys dive. If that’s what they do, that leaves a lot of questions about what the temperatures are doing at the top and bottom during the dive. Maybe they’ve characterized that often enough for at least one buoy located somewhere constant. Do you know?
Unlike land and atmosphere, ocean temps below the surface are not changing over the course of a day. In any case, the noise this produces will be random, and average out.
The locations change slowly and are tracked. There are no urban and rural in the ocean, and temps are spatially correlated.
I don’t see the big problem.
It was not a problem, it was a question. Now I’m even more curious about whether sufficient studies have been done with enough buoys concentrated enough to know that averaged noise and spatial correlation is not erroneous? The temporal temperature changes are in thousands of a degree, aren’t they?
Perhaps you know stuff and just aren’t bothering to say how. Or perhaps you don’t know and are just making stuff up.
“I think the ARGO system is garbling up the SST data and analysis even more than hoped.”
“I think Patrick explained it adequately. A true average temperature is impossible”
“Too much time and movement between each individual reading”
These are assertions, not questions. Again people making over-the-top claims based on a feeling, not real data.
Issues of movement are not issues if they are negligibly small. How much movement is there? How much is too much?
From ARGO:
“How accurate is the Argo data?
The temperatures in the Argo profiles are accurate to 0.002C and pressures are accurate to 2.4dbar. For salinity,there are two answers. The data delivered in real time are sometimes affected by sensor drift. For many floats this drift is small, and the uncorrected salinities are accurate to .01 psu. At a later stage, salinities are corrected by expert examination, comparing older floats with newly deployed instruments and with ship-based data. Corrections are made both for identified sensor drift and for a thermal lag error, which can result when the float ascends through a region of strong temperature gradients.”
Issues of under-sampling are based on a feeling that the number is too small. How small is too small?
Example: polls of < 1000 people can sample the opinions darn well of 300 million Americans.
I did not pose my questions well and frankly don’t know why I’m bothering to ask.
Do you know if the ARGO averages and spatial correlations you referred to have been verified by sufficient measurements across depth, area, and time?
If you don’t know, just say or knock yourself out investigating it. I could do it myself if I had the time.
And forget polling. Totally irrelevant for validation.
ARGO measures in the top 2000 m of the ocean, and very little at the surface.
@ David
Don’t they take continuous temperature, salinity, and other measurements at all times while listing their position (depth and lat/long location?
Regarding the above Argo discussion, the data has been corrected/corrupted:
Correcting Ocean Cooling
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling
Steve ,
Good example of scientists working hard to get measurements right. Real world measurements are hard (just ask Roy!).
See
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/the-sorry-state-of-climate-science-peer-review-and-kudos-to-nic-lewis/#comment-332851
Roy,
You’ve just illustrated science working as it should. A knowledgeable critic weighed-in, and an error is caught. Nothing prevents this from happening with any paper.
Science, ultimately is self-correcting. Just faster than usual in this case, with an obvious error.
You seem to have missed the point.
Roy, you yourself have published a peer reviewed paper (more?) that turned out to be badly wrong, because of a sign error. Whose fault was that, the reviewers?
I realize skeptics (“etc”) are looking to score any points they can. But this is how science works. This is a great example of how science works. I was taught that peer review doesn’t mean a paper is right, it means it’s not obviously wrong, and that it adheres to basic scholarly standards, especially in citing earlier and related work. The scientists who wrote this paper quickly considered Lewis’s comments and worked to fix their error, even though Lewis was unprofessional in criticizing the Nature authors. He told Reason magazine:
“I’ve had no substantive response from Professor Resplandy, just a non-committal reply saying that they were looking into the questions I had raised and if they found anything that needed correction they would address it. Unfortunately, they have every incentive to conclude that they don’t need to take any action! So do Nature; journals don’t like being made to look foolish.”
https://reason.com/blog/2018/11/08/is-new-study-claiming-the-oceans-are-war
Nic Lewis should apologize to the Nature authors for this.
That’s huge chutzpa you calling for an apology from Nic Lewis.
I’m not familiar with the specific paper of Dr. Spencer’s to which you are referring. Did the sign error make a difference in his paper’s ramifications? If not, it would be an apples-to-oranges comparison. /pun off
The Effect of Diurnal Correction on Satellite-Derived Lower Tropospheric Temperature
Carl A. Mears, Frank J. Wentz,
Science, 2005
Abstract
Satellite-based measurements of decadal-scale temperature change in the lower troposphere have indicated cooling relative to Earth’s surface in the tropics. Such measurements need a diurnal correction to prevent drifts in the satellites’ measurement time from causing spurious trends. We have derived a diurnal correction that, in the tropics, is of the OPPOSITE SIGN from that previously applied. When we use this correction in the calculation of lower tropospheric temperature from satellite microwave measurements, we find tropical warming consistent with that found at the surface and in our satellite-derived version of middle/upper tropospheric temperature.
“We agree with C. A. Mears and F. J. Wentz (The effect of diurnal correction on satellite- derived lower tropospheric temperature, Reports, 2 Sept., p. [1548][1]; published online 11 Aug.) that our University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) method of calculating a diurnal correction to our lower..”
response of Christy and Spencer in Science, 2005
Thanks for clearing that up, Nate.
Chic: Nic Lewis was unprofessional.
For that he should apologize to Resplande et al.
What could you possibly know about professionalism? You are nothing but a pest spewing your religious fanaticism. Why not back up your plagiarizerish citation polution with some research of your own instead of annoying every skeptic commenter on every blog you haven’t yet been banned from?
David is a professional denouncer. He will inform on you should you use a joke which offends his feminist religion.
David,
And how many publications should apologize for the disdain with which they treat those (See Dr. Spencer’s original essay) whose politics don’t adhere to the AGW agenda? Name a few, please, you’re so erudite and knowledgeable about such.
As Dr. Spencer mentioned above to a different poster “you missed the point”. The fact that his name was on a paper that had a sign error is not relevant to the question of whether or not papers that support AGW receive adequate peer review.
“You seem to have missed the point”
You summarized the point at the end.
“the peer review process, presumably involving credentialed climate scientists, should have caught the error before publication.”
So the point seems to be that a peer reviewer missed an error. Oh well, big deal, it happens in every field from time to time.
No pattern, trend, widespread problem is demonstrated.
Nate,
That’s not the point I got. What I got from the article was:
i) The number of qualified people to review articles in climate journals has dramatically shrunk.
ii) The reviewers of articles in climate journals tend to be biased based on their own views.
If I’m reading between the lines I gather a smaller number of biased reviewers may be inclined to accept something for publication that appears to have a conclusion that matches their bias without much review, whereas something not matching their bias tends to be more than thoroughly reviewed…
Of course, this is Roy’s opinion (it is after all on his blog…) and I gather based on your posts you would disagree.
Barry
“So the point seems to be that a peer reviewer missed an error.”
Should be:
So the point seems to be that a peer review missed an error.
And the “scientific rag” should have an editor who is able do math.
“The number of qualified people to review articles in climate journals has dramatically shrunk.”
Not sure why that would be. I would expect the number of available reviewers to be proportional to the number of people publishing in a field.
‘The reviewers of articles in climate journals tend to be biased based on their own views.’
Reviewers have always had their own quirks, biases, and specialties.
Might say: peer review is the worst way to review papers, except for all the other ways.
Roy is able to get papers published, even ones which have errors missed by peer reviewers (see discussion above).
After getting published, certainly, a paper in Nature gets more scrutiny from all, as this one did.
IMO, because of the politicization of climate science, there is a tendency for run-of-the-mill contrarion papers to be over-hyped in the conservative media as major important developments, when in fact they may have flaws, and are just one paper out of many.
This draws the attention of critics, who would otherwise not have noticed and let it slide.
This has happened to some of Roys papers.
Nate,
Your statement about available reviewers may be correct. It also may be correct that qualified reviewers are fewer.
As you say, peer review is the best of the flawed approaches. However, if people allow their biases to guide a review process it starts looking like philosophy not science.
IMO, hype goes both ways. Just like peer review bodies… legislative bodies and news media are also biased… as are you and me. With news I tend to watch multiple sources and try to interpolate to determine the ‘truth.’ When it comes to climate science, it seems a hunt for ‘truth’ may also involve multiple sources.
Barry
Well put
“IMO, because of the politicization of climate science, there is a tendency for run-of-the-mill contrarion papers to be over-hyped in the conservative media as major important developments, when in fact they may have flaws, and are just one paper out of many.”
Where is this conservative media you speak of?
The usual suspects. Fox News. Newsmax. Breitbart. Daily Telegraph…
Nate, You did miss the point.
The erroneous Nature article was not the proof of academic bias, rather, academic bias was first argued, and then it was argued that academic bias was likely in play in allowing this nature article’s errors to go unnoticed
The Psychological literature proves the existence of this effect, test papers were written with exactly the same logic, but with different data. Half of the paper’s data supported one conclusion, half of the papers supported another. Reviewers who are biased for one conclusion found more errors with papers against their narrative than with papers supporting their narrative, even though both papers are exactly the same but for the data. Some reviewers even found errors that were not in the paper. So when Roy says “I have had at least one paper rejected based upon a single reviewer who obviously didn’t read the paper…he criticized claims not even made in the paper.”, his experience was probably not an isolated incident.
“Nate, You did miss the point.”
Well maybe. As I agreed, peer reviewers are human.
But the error in the Nature paper was the only ‘evidence’ given to support the narrative. But it is just a blip, that could also support a narrative that–Hey, errors occasionally happen.
The evidence given for a widespread problem of bias in climate science is just anecdotal, from an author with an agenda.
But it certainly does a good job of throwing red meat to the readership.
It’s a tactic used regularly by cable news. Lets go out and find an egregious example of something to support the agenda, an illegal-immigrant rapist-murderer welfare-cheat, and showcase it. How common is this phenomenon is not stated. Its left to the audience to assume that it must be VERY prevalent.
In reality, it’s more rare than US-citizen rapist-murderer-welfare cheats, but no one in the audience cares.
This is climate science peer review process at work
https://goo.gl/PB32hC
The good news is that this is a case where the error was caught, and admitted to.
The bad news is that the peer review process, presumably involving credentialed climate scientists, should have caught the error before publication.
Unfortunately You people still think this is some kind of error, it is not , this is all deliberate.
The scam of AGW is all coming to an end.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 13, 2017 at 5:18 AM
“I still say according to satellite data global temperatures by next summer will be at or below 30 year means. 1980-2010.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2017-0-28-deg-c/#comment-258853
Salvatore Del Prete says:
November 14, 2018 at 2:45 PM
The scam of AGW is all coming to an end.
If only that were true. This mess is going to continue for years to come. Too many people have tied their careers to it. It’s a Trillion dollar business and it’s not going bankrupt anytime soon.
Eben, what evidence do you have that this was deliberate? Any whatsoever?
Which part of “Stay out of my posts you creep” do not understand ?
Prove it’s not.
Eben,
DA is something we have to learn to live with. It’s hard to BBQ without drawing flies.
Eben doesn’t like being called out on his lies.
Perhaps more good news in another arena – persistent observation:
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/aurora-flight-sciences-reveals-solar-powered-autonomous-aircraft-odysseus-300750256.html
Spot on. Lots of folks seem focused on whether or not the results of this particular paper confirm their previously held beliefs but that is beside the point. Dr. Spencer is correct in his assessment that the primary take-away of this particular episode is to point out a serious flaw in the peer review process. Not to criticize it unduly, since after all the reviewers do so on a voluntary, unpaid basis and it can take a substantial amount of effort to thoroughly review a paper.
My own experience I think mirrors Dr Spencer’s in that reviewers tend to have areas of specialty which they use as a lens with which to review a paper. Most of my papers have a fairly mathematical bent, although they sometimes wind up in journals that are more experimentally oriented or are traditionally less math oriented, such as microbiology, photochemistry, or observational astronomy. Reviewers often produce comments that are largely tangential to the main thrust of the paper but focus on whatever is the specialty of the reviewer. Only when the journal is focused on mathematics do the reviewers weigh in substantially. From my point of view, it is a pleasure to have someone critically review the work to improve whatever I publish. I would not be surprised if none of the reviewers of this paper actually tried to check the math by doing it themselves. I have often found the statistics applied in papers (in many disciplines, not just climate science) to be crying out for review by a specialist in statistics.
This issue tends to lessen even further (as if it needed it) the strength of the appeal to the authority of “peer reviewed literature” as some kind of gospel that speaks the infallible truth. Galileo got it right when he said “In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” We should all strive to be that humble individual.
” reviewers tend to have areas of specialty which they use as a lens with which to review a paper.”
Those lenses are called hockey stick glasses
https://goo.gl/Vw4VeJ
I did not mean that statement to be at all derogatory. Somewhat the contrary actually. Often a reviewer will clearly be specialized in a particular experimental area and they will pay great attention to see that details of experimental processes or procedures are clarified, when in fact the overall gist of the paper may be theoretical. Or the reviewer may work in a specific mathematical area involved in the paper where there are expectations as to specific notations to be used for certain kinds of quantities. Although one’s paper may be internally consistent and correct, it is beneficial to have the language of the paper (i.e. the notation) accord with expectations and the comfort level of that segment of readers who would otherwise be taken aback or confused. Comments like that are always welcome. Often one reviewer will clearly focus on one aspect and another on another aspect. In the best of all worlds the waterfront would be covered. I have rarely, but not never, seen reviewers clearly opinionated enough about some specific point to be unable to find an amenable solution. Admittedly, I don’t work in climate science so I can’t speak for the practice in climate science. My experience in other disciplines is that most reviewer comments improve the quality of the final paper.
fah: How did Christy and Roy’s notorious sign-error paper get through peer review?
How many times are you going to make this point without citing the paper and whether the sign change was insignificant with respect to the paper’s conclusions?
David makes it up as he goes along and then tells how he is a scientist because he got a degree in something or other.
Any facts, Lewis? None that I’ve ever seen so far.
“Correcting Temperature Data Sets,” Christy, Spencer et al, Science v310, 11 Nov 2005.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/310/5750/972.full?etoc=
PS: This is pretty famous/notorious error. Everyone commenting here should already know about it.
More info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset#Corrections_made
Thanks Roy, but can you also tell us what you think of the joint Royal Society/ NAS Q&A. Their point 20 looks at the outcome if all human co2 emissions stopped today. So just a fantasy, just ask China, India and the non OECD countries.
We know the ice core studies show co2 levels remain elevated for thousands of years after temps dropped at the end of the much warmer Eemian inter- glacial, so I suppose this could be correct if you accept the ice core data.
But would the temp remain at present level and not drop for a thousand years or more? And would co2 levels not drop to say 1800 levels for many more thousands of years? If they are correct then it doesn’t make much sense to rave on about all their wild so called MITIGATION .
And the non OECD countries co2 emissions continue to soar, so the Q&A above is just absurd. Here’s their point 20 and a link to the larger graph. So Roy what do you think of their point 20 Q&A and the 2013 Zickfeld et al study?
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/fig9-large.jpg?la=en-GB
Here’s their answer—–
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-20/
20.” If emissions of greenhouse gases were stopped, would the climate return to the conditions of 200 years ago?
Climate change: evidence and causes
“No. Even if emissions of greenhouse gases were to suddenly stop, Earth’s surface temperature would not cool and return to the level in the pre-industrial era for thousands of years.
fig9-smallFigure 9. If global emissions were to suddenly stop, it would take a long time for surface air temperatures and the ocean to begin to cool, because the excess CO2 in the atmosphere would remain there for a long time and would continue to exert a warming effect. Model projections show how atmospheric CO2 concentration (a), surface air temperature (b), and ocean thermal expansion (c) would respond following a scenario of business-as-usual emissions ceasing in 2300 (red), a scenario of aggressive emission reductions, falling close to zero 50 years from now (orange), and two intermediate emissions scenarios (green and blue). The small downward tick in temperature at 2300 is caused by the elimination of emissions of short-lived greenhouse gases, including methane. Source: Zickfeld et al., 2013 (larger version)
If emissions of CO2 stopped altogether, it would take many thousands of years for atmospheric CO2 to return to ‘pre-industrial’ levels due to its very slow transfer to the deep ocean and ultimate burial in ocean sediments. Surface temperatures would stay elevated for at least a thousand years, implying extremely long-term commitment to a warmer planet due to past and current emissions, and sea level would likely continue to rise for many centuries even after temperature stopped increasing (see Figure 9). Significant cooling would be required to reverse melting of glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet, which formed during past cold climates. The current CO2-induced warming of Earth is therefore essentially irreversible on human timescales. The amount and rate of further warming will depend almost entirely on how much more CO2 humankind emits”.
Atmospheric CO2 growth is not related to human emissions. See”Responsiveness of Atmospheric Co2 to Anthropogenic Emissions” by Jamal Munshi
Hah! B.S.
Neville, you’re right. Worth reading:
“The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth’s Climate,” David Archer (University of Chicago), 2008.
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10727.html
David,
Are you stupid on purpose or were you born ignorant?
Neville,
Dr. Ed Berry published a paper that I think would contradict some of the Royal Society suppositions (which I did not read):
https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/contradictions-to-ipccs-climate-change-theory/
Their conclusions assume effects of CO2 which have not been proven, therefore they have no idea what temperatures will do regardless of what CO2 levels are.
Chic: Ed Berry’s claims are pure junk. (Nor has he “published” a paper — blog posts aren’t science.) If you look at Ed Berry’s equations (have you?), he assumes that once a CO2 molecule leaves the atmosphere nones take its place. In fact, there is a continuous flux of CO2 molecules between the atmosphere, ocean and land.
Dr. Berry asks, “What is Appell’s problem?”
Appell’s problem is my preprint threatens his climate religion, and he cannot find any error in my preprint.”
https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/david-appell-phd-punches-tar-baby/
“The American Meteorological Society (AMS) published my paper: ‘Contradictions to IPCC’s Climate Change Theory’”
https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/the-american-meteorological-society-posted-my-paper/
Chic: It’s clear you can’t evaluate the veracity of Ed Berry’s claims for yourself.
It’s why you end up believing anything as long as it satisfies your personal biases.
I’m not the frump claiming Dr. Berry’s paper is “pure junk.”
(Nor are you authorized to decide what is or is not science.)
Put up or shut up.
“It’s why you end up believing anything as long as it satisfies your personal biases.”
You have no idea what I might end up believing. I am a skeptic, not a robotic AGW shill like yourself.
Chic, I’m read your comments and seen your standards. I have yet to see you analyze any paper based on its science — You will believe anything if it tells you what you want to hear.
What bonafides do you have to judge anyone’s standards? What papers do you expect to be analysed on a blog? In your own words:
“Nor has he ‘published’ a paper blog posts aren’t science.”
Calling Dr. Ed Berry’s paper junk is not a scientific analysis. So analyze it scientifically and prove you are not just a political hack even AGW supporters are likely ashamed of.
DA – So, I read the paper, and I’m not a climatologist, but proving him wrong would be trivial. You post here with a sense of authority. Is it not worth your while to prove YOUR scientific worth to a bunch of skeptics and thereby win points with those of us that consider ourselves open to new data by actually refuting the paper on a scientific basis. (It really wouldn’t be hard.)
Joseph,
Re: Ed Beery’s article
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/the-sorry-state-of-climate-science-peer-review-and-kudos-to-nic-lewis/#comment-330308
“The American Meteorological Society (AMS) published my paper: ‘Contradictions to IPCC’s Climate Change Theory'”
No, Berry’s paper has been POSTED online by the AMS prior to presenting it at a conference. Saying that it has been PUBLISHED is just weasel words. It hasn’t been through the formal peer review process yet, as Berry himself indicates in the article.
“I made it a PREPRINT because I will submit it to a scientific journal.”
Publish: to make generally known, to make public announcement of, to disseminate to the public, to produce or release for distribution; specifically: print.
When you are done nit-picking, can you make any intelligent challenge to his PREPRINT that has been available for public review for some time now. Surely you can point out the flaws in his physics model which contradicts climate change theory.
Chic, you’re laughable. To “publish” in science means something, an it certainly doesn’t mean whatever junk Ed Berry throws up on his blog.
Desperate deniers need to think so, though.
I’m not the one who makes a fool of himself on this blog and elsewhere day after day. I pity you.
If you can explain what is junky about Dr. Berry’s physics model, just do so. Stop with the deflections proving you are a fake, phony, fraud.
Chic, you were clearly responding to (trying to rebut) David saying Berry had not published a paper. You still are. If you don’t understand what a published paper is with respect to formal science, then you may want to find out. Having the AMS post a link to a thesis online is not it. Publishing is about having your work reviewed by experts and passed.
Berry’s thesis could be brilliant. I don’t have time to check it out. But brilliant or not, it hasn’t been published WRT to the scientific process. You can still reasonably ask for people to check it out, but the imprimatur of “being published” you are trying to give it is simply false.
Barry,
You clearly aren’t understanding that I don’t have a snooty attitude about publishing that you seem to. Are you so astute a scientist that you can’t stoop to the level of those that can’t, won’t, or don’t publish in a journal that meets your standards?
If you don’t have time to “check it out” then pontificate on publishing on some other more prestigious blog. I’m left to assume you also can’t critique Berry’s physics model scientifically, a deficiency to which Appell has already tacitly admitted.
Berry is submitting his paper to a journal. As he said. Her seems to think it is an important step to take. This isn’t about feelings or superciliousness, it’s about accuracy. Berry’s work hasn’t been formally published. Maybe it will be. Chill out.
No, I won’t chill out. Accuracy? Give me a break. His paper presents a model that explains data allegedly better than the IPCC model does. If you have a problem with accuracy, say what it is.
You have plenty of time to comment on all sorts of discussions on this blog. Until you show otherwise, I will assume you either don’t understand the paper or haven’t yet figured out a way to challenge it.
You may be interested in this, Chic.
http://euanmearns.com/whats-up-with-the-bomb-model/
Dr.Ed Berry’s preprint fleshes out Harde’s 2017 Paper that followed the work by Murray Salby of the evolution of CO2 in the atmosphere. Hadre was not allowed to print his rebuttal of the weak criticism of his paper by Kohler etal. (https://hhgpc0.wixsite.com/harde-2017-censored) Salby has a new video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5335&v=NtIgMftbUuw) of his presentation in Germany discussing the physics in this analysis, the egregious censoring of Harde and the total failure of the Kohlar work to fit in a physical universe. Bottom line the recent increase in CO2 is only a small part anthropogenic and trying to control climate by not using fossil fuels is a lost cause.
Bottom line the recent increase in CO2 is only a small part anthropogenic and trying to control climate by not using fossil fuels is a lost cause.
15 papers on the global carbon cycle.
35 papers on anthro CO2 observations.
8 papers on anthro CO2 emissions.
14 papers on the oceans as a net sink of CO2.
Bottom line: the recent increase in CO2 is entirely or very nearly entirely due to human activity. If so, skeptics can always refer to talking point numbers 12, 28, 29, 30 and 121.
Cmon guys, DMA and Chic, whenever there is a disagreement between their model and data, Berry and Salby assume the data must be wrong.
The ice-core CO2 record must be wrong.
The experts on the carbon cycle are all somehow idiots who’ve made obvious arithmetic errors.
Like Invasion of the Body Snatchers, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4VIMzhfeYc
the anthro CO2 is taken away, but replaced by an equal amount of natural CO2.
This coincidental match has been repeating decade after decade for a century.
Barry,
With regard to Euan Mearns, He seems to be arguing “14C in the atmosphere cannot be used to measure the rate of CO2 sequestration. Berry says he’s wrong. I think probably, because Berry is claiming 14C has a greater residence time than 14C. It seems that Mearns is saying the opposite, but neither say the IPCC is correct. I will have to wait until Berry explains why Mearns is wrong to say anything more.
More objections to the Bern model are located here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/01/the-bombtest-curve-and-its-implications-for-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-residency-time/
“By supporting the Bern model and similar carbon cycle models, the IPCC and climate modellers have taken the stand that the Keeling curve can be presumed to reflect only anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. The results in Paper 13 show that this presumption is inconsistent with virtually all reported experimental results that have a direct bearing on the relaxation kinetics of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As long as climate modellers continue to disregard the available empirical information on thermal out-gassing and on the relaxation kinetics of airborne carbon dioxide, their model predictions will remain too biased to provide any inferences of significant scientific or political interest.”
With regard to the 72 papers you cite, how do they show that Berry’s physics model is incorrect? And what are talking points 12, 28, 29, 30 and 121? Science isn’t done by publishing more papers than the other guy/girl.
Nate,
I like Jeff Goldblum, but I have no idea what coincidental match you are writing about. Don’t cmon guys us without something substantive to discuss.
No one is calling experts idiots except the usual suspects on this blog.
Nate says”whenever there is a disagreement between their model and data, Berry and Salby assume the data must be wrong.The ice-core CO2 record must be wrong.”
As I think about the process of forming firn and ice containing CO2 bubbles I must agree with them that this “data” is at best unreliable and likely only useful for general trends on atmospheric CO2 over long time span. As the conditions change from year to year some of the air is possibly trapped within a few years while other bubbles form for periods of 50 or more years as the ambient atmosphere has partial access to the openings that will be eventually closed off. There are changes of state that take place as the pressure is increased. Then somehow the decision to declare the CO2 is 82 years older than the ice it is trapped in so it can be treated as exact correlation to the ice timeline.
To get to the conclusion that all of the CO2 increase is from human sources you have to come up with a mechanism that changes sink rates such that the changes in human emissions rates are pre-adjusted so the atmospheric growth rate remains constant. That is hard for me to envision.
None of the carbon cycle stages out side the atmosphere are important to the evolution of CO2 in the atmosphere.
I have seen nothing materially diminishing the work of Salby, Harde or Berry in the SKS articles and am impressed with the multiple independent methods of physical analysis that lead to this low human impact conclusion. The effort to censor Harde
( https://hhgpc0.wixsite.com/harde-2017-censored) is not acceptable in any effort to find truth
Well said, DMA. Obviously we are on the same page.
Whenever there is a disagreement between skeptic data and the AGW hypothesis, alarmists assume the data must be wrong.
“process of forming firn and ice containing CO2 bubbles…”
This is a story that has been invented to rationalize why the ice core data must be wrong. But there is no real evidence that this story is accurate. Many research groups have validated the ice core data.
This is similar to the murder trial defense inventing another scenario that MAY have happened, to raise reasonable doubt, when there is no doubt.
Body snatchers: indeed
When one plots CO2 concentration vs Cumulative emissions since 1959, an extremely linear curve is obtained, indicating near-perfect correlation.
Eg with this tool http://climexp.knmi.nl/start.cgi?id=someone@somewhere
The amount of cumulative emissions is ~ double the amount accumulating in the atmosphere. The difference is approx. what is found to be accumulating in the ocean and biosphere.
This is at least 6 decades of quantitative match between emissions and concentration.
Going back to 1880, the match continues but with more wiggles in the plot (as expected).
The idea that this match is coincidental, that human CO2 has all been absor*bed and yet replaced by a carbon-copy, :>, made of natural CO2, of just the right amount, decade by decade, is as plausible as human beings getting replaced by alien exact copies.
The idea strains credulity.
This alternative theory is not quantitative. It is speculative. It cannot account quantitatively for the movements of carbon in the system the way that the anthro model does.
The CO2 record shows ~ 6 ppm decline between the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age,
http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.gif
and no other large changes in the last 15,000 y.
Without finding any evidence of such large natural variations of atm CO2 in the 15,000 year record, it strains belief that a natural rise of CO2 of 120 ppm can be driven by a temperature rise of 1 degree C.
DMA,
“To get to the conclusion that all of the CO2 increase is from human sources you have to come up with a mechanism that changes sink rates such that the changes in human emissions rates are pre-adjusted so the atmospheric growth rate remains constant. That is hard for me to envision.”
No. Atmospheric growth rate is not constant. You’ll have to explain this.
“None of the carbon cycle stages out side the atmosphere are important to the evolution of CO2 in the atmosphere.”
How ridiculous. Of course they matter. They are the sources and sinks for atm CO2!
“the weak criticism of his paper by Kohler etal. ”
Here is the abstract of that ‘weak criticism’ commentary puplished in the same journal by Kohler et al.
“Harde (2017) proposes an alternative accounting scheme for the modern carbon cycle and concludes that only 4.3% of today’s atmospheric CO2 is a result of anthropogenic emissions. As we will show, this alternative scheme is too simple, is based on invalid assumptions, and does not address many of the key processes involved in the global carbon cycle that are important on the timescale of interest. Harde (2017) therefore reaches an incorrect conclusion about the role of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Harde (2017) tries to explain changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration with a single equation, while the most simple model of the carbon cycle must at minimum contain equations of at least two reservoirs (the atmosphere and the surface ocean), which are solved simultaneously. A single equation is fundamentally at odds with basic theory and observations.”
Nate says
““process of forming firn and ice containing CO2 bubbles…”
This is a story that has been invented to rationalize why the ice core data must be wrong”
This is not an invention but common sense. The wind blows snow around if there is any melting CO2 gets dissolved,different rates of sublimation effect different yearly snow packs. So why is the offset chosen at 82 years to align CO2 with the age of the ice when the estimates of time in firn to ice layer is 15 to 45 years? It’s so the ice core up tick will match the Keeling curve. Why not just shift about 40 years to match the CO2 rise in the mid 1940s documented by thousands of chemical air analyses in Beck 2007? Probably because that would require acknowledging those analyses. There is good stommata evidence from three continents that CO2 was over 350 PPM about 8000 years ago that has to be dismissed to accept the Ice core data as accurate.
Further Nate says “No. Atmospheric growth rate is not constant. You’ll have to explain this.”
Human emissions rates took a big jump around 2002 from about .04 to .14 PPMV per year per year
I just got a hip replaced last Thursday and it is a little hard to focus. I inadvertently hit the submit button too soon.
I will finish this comment later.
‘Common sense’ is not equivalent to real science.
Show me a paper that demonstrates this.
What’s wrong with Berry’s article. Many, many things. He misrepresents the literature, the Bern model, the natural vs anthro CO2.
Example:
Various places he makes the claim that the natural carbon inflow is so much larger than the anthro inflow in each year. Therefore it is responsible for the rise. It is larger, 10 GT for anthro, 100 GT natural, but natural is seasonal and hemispheric, therefore oscillatory, so averages to 0 over a year.
It is very similar to the large seasonal oscillation in temperature, 30 C in my region. Comparing this to the temperature rise due to climate change, 0.017 C/year, and claiming that since the natural part is so much larger, climate change must be natural–that makes no sense.
He then says:
“In its core argument, the IPCC correctly notes that
human emissions from 1750 to 2013 totaled 185
ppm while atmospheric CO2 increased by only
117 ppm. But the IPCC incorrectly concludes that
this proves human CO2 caused the increase.
The IPCC argument omits natural CO2 which
totaled about 26,000 ppm in the same period. So,
the stronger logical counter-argument is that
nature caused all the increase. ”
What he is doing here is taking the natural oscillatory flow of CO2, which sums over time to 0. But he sums it as if it is not oscillatory, and of course gets a huge nonsense number.
I could equally well have summed the seasonal temp change in my region, 30C, over the same period, and get 8000 C!
IOW, very dumb.
DMA,
‘To get to the conclusion that all of the CO2 increase is from human sources you have to come up with a mechanism that changes sink rates such that the changes in human emissions rates are pre-adjusted so the atmospheric growth rate remains constant. That is hard for me to envision’
There are some natural variations due to ENSO, but:
Here is a plot of atm co2 vs. cumulative emissions. An excellent match.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icum_global_co2_emissions_1958:2016corr8238.png
“…but natural is seasonal and hemispheric, therefore oscillatory, so averages to 0 over a year.”
Bad reasoning. This is like saying sometimes the cars on the Northbound freeway go faster, sometimes slower, therefore it is oscillatory, therefore nobody ever gets anywhere.
“Here is a plot of atm co2 vs. cumulative emissions. An excellent match.”
Bad link. Not a difficult thing to match in this domain. Plus, the thumb is firmly on the scale.
https://tinyurl.com/y9ctrhls
“Bad reasoning. This is like saying sometimes the cars on the Northbound freeway go faster, sometimes slower, therefore it is oscillatory, therefore nobody ever gets anywhere.”
Silly analogy. CO2 is demonstrably oscillatory with the seasons. Trees leaf out and drop leaves every single year. Water warms and cools every year. Unlike cars, CO2 is not trying to go in one direction.
A better analogy is hemispheric temperature. It is oscillatory with a huge amplitude (30C) compared with annual climate change 0.017 C. Both can be happening without affecting each other.
“Unlike cars, CO2 is not trying to go in one direction.”
CO2 goes in one direction, from sources to sinks. It never goes from sink to source.
Really??
Trees can be sources or sinks. Ocean can be source or sink. They oscillate from one to the other.
Really. Growing trees are sinks. Rotting trees are sources. Cold oceans are sinks. Warm oceans are sources.
These are not the same trees and oceans. You are merely playing semantic games.
Atm CO2 is demonstrably periodic with the seasons. The Earth ‘breathes’.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41604760
The NH soil and Forests are a SINK in Spring-Summer and a SOURCE in Fall-Winter.
I assume based on Henrys Law that bodies of water are a SOURCE in summer and a SINK in Winter, but this apparently is a smaller effect.
Measured atm CO2 ‘breathing’ by latitude. Pretty cool.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVYt9ZDDfBs
I happened to see this paper while discussing with Bart.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4534253/
Its figure 1 seems to contradict what edberry is saying, that the IPCC models do not fit the data.
The Graven Figure 1 shows 14C data from 1940 to 2012 and model projections from 2005 to 2100. She doesn’t refer to Bern models which Berry is ascribing to the IPCC. So it is not clear to me that Graven is using the same IPCC model(s) that Berry claims do not fit the data. Graven’s paper makes the point that carbon dating may be limited to samples over 2K years old rather than concluding anything about CO2 emission residence time.
OK.
She cites previous work which established what was going on previously:
Prfior to 1950s and bob efffect, C14 was decreasing in tree rings:
“First observed by Hans Suess in 1955 using tree ring records of atmospheric composition (4), the dilution of 14CO2 by fossil carbon provided one of the first indications that human activities were strongly affecting the global carbon cycle.”
More recently:
Observations and modelling of the global distribution and long-term trend of atmospheric 14CO2
Ingeborg Levin, Tobias Naegler, Bernd Kromer, Moritz Diehl, Roger Francey, Angel Gomez-Pelaez, show all
Pages 26-46 | https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2009.00446.x
Abstract
Global high-precision atmospheric Δ14CO2 records covering the last two decades are presented, and evaluated in terms of changing (radio)carbon sources and sinks, using the coarse-grid carbon cycle model GRACE. Dedicated simulations of global trends and interhemispheric differences with respect to atmospheric CO2 as well as δ13CO2 and Δ14CO2, are shown to be in good agreement with the available observations (1940–2008). While until the 1990s the decreasing trend of Δ14CO2 was governed by equilibration of the atmospheric bomb 14C perturbation with the oceans and terrestrial biosphere, the largest perturbation today are emissions of 14C-free fossil fuel CO2. This source presently depletes global atmospheric Δ14CO2 by 12–14‰ yr−1, which is partially compensated by 14CO2 release from the biosphere, industrial 14C emissions and natural 14C production. Fossil fuel emissions also drive the changing north–south gradient, showing lower Δ14C in the northern hemisphere only since 2002. The fossil fuel-induced north–south (and also troposphere–stratosphere) Δ14CO2 gradient today also drives the tropospheric Δ14CO2 seasonality through variations of air mass exchange between these atmospheric compartments. Neither the observed temporal trend nor the Δ14CO2 north–south gradient may constrain global fossil fuel CO2 emissions to better than 25%, due to large uncertainties in other components of the (radio)carbon cycle.
What is this for? Because someone else has a model, Berry’s can’t be right? If you are going down this road, you have to explain why Berry’s model is wrong and the other models are right. I wish I could do it for you. Not this week ….
Chic,
It seems clear that you havent looked into it very deeply.
Lets face it, you prefer to believe contrarions, because they are contrarions, not because you’ve determined that their science is superior to mainstream science.
I’ve pointed out several basic problems, above. Many others have as well. Do you care? You should.
As pointed out by the Comment on the Harde paper, these guys are not themselves carbon-cycle experts, yet dismiss the work of carbon-cycle experts, and don’t bother to even cite it.
They say that the behavior of carbon on Earth obeys a single, fast, relaxation-time model, IOW much simpler than what the carbon-cycle experts have learned thru 60 y of research.
Really? The Earth is simpler than we’ve thought?
Or are these guys just ignoring the complexity?
Nate,
It is true I haven’t looked at CO2 residence time papers deeply enough. Meanwhile, I am gathering background on this issue. Thanks for papers you have cited.
OTOH, not citing someone’s paper is not sufficient criteria for discrediting Harde’s or Berry’s arguments. Your argument seems to be that since other experts came to a different conclusion, then Berry et alia must be wrong. It is up to you or their opponents to explain why you are right and they are wrong.
I don’t have the time so I don’t expect you to do better, but just saying Johnny-come-latelies can’t disagree with experts is not a good argument. Isn’t it possible that two completely different models explain the same data? Berry did suggest Occam’s razor should apply.
See here
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/the-sorry-state-of-climate-science-peer-review-and-kudos-to-nic-lewis/#comment-330308
and “Berry did suggest Occam’s razor should apply.”
Indeed it should. Simplest idea is that we’ve emitted stuff and it has accumulated. Excellent match to data:
Both cumulative carbon emissions, and atmospheric concentration since 1959 are gently curving upward with similar shaped curves.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/getindices.cgi?WMO=CDIACData/cum_global_co2_emissions&STATION=cum_CO2_emissions&TYPE=i&NPERYEAR=1&id=someone@somewhere
https://climexp.knmi.nl/getindices.cgi?WMO=CDIACData/maunaloa_f&STATION=Mauna_Loa_CO2&TYPE=i&id=someone@somewhere
How similar?
“When one plots CO2 concentration vs Cumulative emissions since 1959, an extremely linear curve is obtained, indicating near-perfect correlation.”
Both cumulative emissions and concentration have increased 4x since 1959.
“The mass of cumulative carbon emissions is ~ double the amount accumulating in the atmosphere. The difference is approx. what is found to be accumulating in the ocean and biosphere.
This is at least 6 decades of quantitative match between emissions and concentration.”
The alternative model of Berry et al. does not seem Occam-friendly at all:
“The idea that this match is coincidental, that human CO2 has all been absor*bed and yet replaced by a carbon-copy, made of natural CO2, of just the right amount, decade by decade, is as plausible as human beings getting replaced by alien exact copies.
The idea strains credulity.”
‘When one plots CO2 concentration vs Cumulative emissions since 1959, an extremely linear curve is obtained, indicating near-perfect correlation.’
Finally figured out how to show that plot, I think.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icum_global_co2_emissions_1958:2016corr8238.png
‘Both cumulative emissions and concentration have increased 4x since 1959.’
Sorry, wrong. The emissions and the rate-of-change of concentration have both increased 4x since 1959.
“Simplest idea is that weve emitted stuff and it has accumulated.”
Simplistic, not simple. It implies a very contrived type of system that treats anthropogenic and natural flows on an uneven playing field.
“Both cumulative carbon emissions, and atmospheric concentration since 1959 are gently curving upward with similar shaped curves.
Gently curving time series are easy to make similar – just do a linear regression of the one against the other. As long as the curvature is in the same direction, you’ll get a decent fit. That makes it essentially a coin toss.
What is difficult is matching every nook and cranny, as well as the long term. That’s what the temperature data does.
“What is difficult is matching every nook and cranny”
We’ve been over this many times. Without rising anthro CO2, there would still be the nature-driven nooks and crannies, due to seasons, ENSO, volcanoes, etc.
The anthro CO2 has nothing whatsoever to do with the seasons, ENSO or volcanoes. These are the largest drivers of natural variations and have been going on for eons.
So to say anthro CO2 MUST explain these nooks and crannies, that already have a separate explanation, is completely illogical.
“As long as the curvature is in the same direction, youll get a decent fit. ”
Yes, you get a ‘decent’ fit for either Cum emissions or integrated temperature on one axis and Co2 conc on the other.
I showed the fit for cum emissions vs Co2. The fit is objectively excellent, with R ~ 0.999, with no adjustable parameter.
While for temperature the fit is poorer with both eyes and R, and requires an adjustable parameter. If you can show otherwise, please do.
And again, nothing ‘simple’ about having an ongoing, for a century or more, coincidental quantitative match of ‘natural’ emissions to anthro emissions.
That is highly improbable.
“It implies a very contrived type of system that treats anthropogenic and natural flows on an uneven playing field.”
They ARE uneven. Not contrived at all. One is seasonal, hemispheric, and oscillatory, and is a carbon exchange between 3 reservoirs, and the other is a monotonic addition to all 3 reservoirs.
See
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/the-sorry-state-of-climate-science-peer-review-and-kudos-to-nic-lewis/#comment-330308
“The fit is objectively excellent, with R ~ 0.999, with no adjustable parameter.”
Nonsense. You have to scale the total emissions by roughly 1/2 to get a fit. That’s an adjustable parameter.
An “excellent fit” in the absolute concentration domain is not noteworthy. It’s like a detective saying he found the perpetrator by matching the size of a depression on the victim’s neck with the size of the perp’s thumb. Big whup. But, if he said he’d matched the far more detailed fingerprint, that would result in a conviction.
“That is highly improbable.”
Not in the least.
“Nonsense. You have to scale the total emissions by roughly 1/2 to get a fit. That’s an adjustable parameter.”
For temperature, you need to pick a 0 for it to get even a linear fit. It appears to be arbitrary. You need to scale by an arbitrary factor. Can anyone predict this factor??
For emissions, to get a line, no adjustment needed at all.
To make fully quantitative prediction, yes. But the factor 1/2 is not arbitrary.
a. plausible-it is comparable to but less than 1
b. Agrees with measured accumulation of CO2 in other 2 reservoirs- ocean mixed-layer and land biota.
c. Agrees with carbon cycle expectations.
“For temperature, you need to pick a 0 for it to get even a linear fit.”
Well, duh. The baseline for the temperature anomaly is arbitrary. Why should it match up?
“You need to scale by an arbitrary factor. Can anyone predict this factor??”
How do you pick your factor of 1/2? Yes, this is an arbitrary factor, too.
“a. plausible-it is comparable to but less than 1
A neutral fact. If it were greater than 1, it would be disqualifying. Less than one doesn’t tell us anything.
b. Agrees with measured accumulation of CO2 in other 2 reservoirs- ocean mixed-layer and land biota.
After the fact. Not based on anything fundamental. It’s no different than my choosing the scaling factor for temperature based on observation that establishes it.
“c. Agrees with carbon cycle expectations.”
Again, after the fact. You are just rationalizing what you want to be true.
“Big whup. But, if he said hed matched the far more detailed fingerprint, that would result in a conviction.”
1. There is a quantitative match (~constant scale factor 1/2) for decades to emissions, the other 1/2 can be accounted for.
2. There is Motive, Means and Opportunity for emissions. IE there is direct causative mechanism for emissions to result in accumulation.
3. There are other CSI evidence. Isotope analysis. Prior to 1950s tree rings showed a decrease over time in C14. C13/C12 ratio decreasing is a fingerprint, O2 decreasing is a fingerprint. Carbon with depth in the ocean is a fingerprint.
4. The century long spike in CO2 is unprecedented in the ice core record for at least 20 millenia. Yet both the size and decade by decade history of the spike matches human emissions.
5. Looking at the 20ky CO2 record, the spike in CO2 sticks out as a singular, sudden, large vertical jump. A singular, sudden, large natural spike in CO2 at precisely this moment in history, with this magnitude, and with this decadal history, arriving simultaneously with a sudden, singular, large human-emissions spike, of the right magnitude, with the right decadal history, is highly unlikely and implausible.
6. There are no big holes in the anthro emissions model that need to be filled by another speculative, improbable, implausible model.
“a. plausible-it is comparable to but less than 1”
“A neutral fact. If it were greater than 1, it would be disqualifying. Less than one doesnt tell us anything.”
Let me be more explicit. The 3 main fast-equilibrating carbon reservoirs, atm, land biota, and ocean mixed layer, are comparable in size. Therefore a-priori, a prediction of ~ 1/3 for the atmospheric fraction can be made. The measured value is ~ 40%.
‘Agrees with measured accumulation of CO2 in other 2 reservoirs- ocean mixed-layer and land biota.’
“After the fact. Not based on anything fundamental.”
So what? Fundamentally it shows mass conservation. The carbon cycle has been studied and modeled better and better over last 60 y. The ocean carbon chemistry is understood. The measured carbon flows, to first order, can be successfully modeled.
“Its no different than my choosing the scaling factor for temperature based on observation that establishes it.”
Completely different. No one (you?) can even estimate the factor based on theory. You have not even bothered to compare to real numbers found in nature.
“…the other 1/2 can be accounted for.”
Of course it can. You can always rationalize it some way. But, it’s a kluge. It’s just a way of sweeping some untidiness under the rug.
“IE there is direct causative mechanism for emissions to result in accumulation.”
Actually, there isn’t. Dissipative systems do not just accumulate, they also… dissipate. For a linear dissipative system, the accumulation due to a given input can never proportionately exceed its proportionate contribution. You’ve got to have a strongly nonlinear response for a 3% addition to result in a 30+% additional accumulation. Such a highly nonlinear response (polynomial order > 10) is not plausible.
“There are other CSI evidence.”
These merely fail to contradict. They do not convict because there are other potential explanations.
“The century long spike in CO2 is unprecedented in the ice core record for at least 20 millenia.”
The ice cores smooth the data considerably. Spikes get hammered down. We do not really know how well the ice core data represent the distant past. There is no corroborating evidence with which to validate them.
“There are no big holes in the anthro emissions model…”
There are. Throughout the 2000’s, emissions rose more than 30%, while the rate of change of concentration flatlined coincident with the stall in temperature anomaly.
“Therefore a-priori, a prediction of ~ 1/3 for the atmospheric fraction can be made.”
This is mere rationalization after the fact again.
“Fundamentally it shows mass conservation.”
It shows nothing of the kind. Mass conservation imposes only a one-way requirement – the causative input cannot be less than the output. It does not demand that if a given input is less than the output, it must be the cause of it.
“No one (you?) can even estimate the factor based on theory.”
I can establish that there must be such a factor, and I can deduce it empirically from the data. That’s as much as you can do for your factor of 1/2.
Correction: “It does not demand that if a given input is greater than the output, it must be the cause of it.”
Enough with this nonsense about rationalization after the fact!
It is entirely ridiculous and simply an excuse to deny data or even look at it.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to fit observations into existing models, or vice-versa.
The whole point of science is to rationalize what is observed. Sometimes the theory comes before the observation, sometimes after.
In climate change, arguably much of it is before (Arrhenius, Callendar, Hansen). Some after.
The basics of the global carbon cycle was understood 60 y ago. I have read a few papers recently on carbon cycle. The models are mathematically sophisticated. But have been constantly informed by measurements over the years. The data is extensive.
“There are no big holes in the anthro emissions model”
“There are. Throughout the 2000s, emissions rose more than 30%, while the rate of change of concentration flatlined coincident with the stall in temperature anomaly.”
I’ve seen the plot and it is very unimpressive. The variation in rate of change of concentration is much larger than any trends.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1985/mean:12/derivative:12/plot/esrl-co2/from:1985/mean:12/derivative/trend
You see a flat trend in here anywhere? Who can tell?
“The century long spike in CO2 is unprecedented in the ice core record for at least 20 millenia.”
“The ice cores smooth the data considerably. Spikes get hammered down.”
Spikes of less than 2 decades, yes.
The rapid rise in the 19th to 20th century is clearly visible in Law Dome and other records. It has not been hammered down.
https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.gif
What else you got?
Carbon emitted and is accumulating…
“Actually, there isnt. Dissipative systems do not just accumulate, they also dissipate. For a linear dissipative system, the accumulation due to a given input can never proportionately exceed its proportionate contribution. Youve got to have a strongly nonlinear response for a 3% addition to result in a 30+% additional accumulation. Such a highly nonlinear response (polynomial order > 10) is not plausible.”
I heard this many times, and yet I never see you trying to compare this speculative mathematical model with real world data.
In contrast, carbon cycle models are constantly being constrained and corrected by real world data.
Why don’t you do that?
‘Dissipative systems do not just accumulate, they also dissipate.’
How much is dissipated per year? Do you know?
How large are the fast-reacting reservoirs compared to the annual emissions? Do you know?
My understanding is that the fast equilibrating reservoirs are only about 3 x the atmospheric reservoir ~ 3000 Gtons of carbon. The annual emission of 10 Gtons, goes into the atmosphere and rapidly (in a few years) equilibrates among the 3.
An accumulation of 4 Gtons/y in the atmosphere is therefore plausible, which is 0.5%/year or 2 ppm/y.
BTW, The C14 emmitted in 1950s-60s is equilbrating w ~ 15 y time constant, consistent with the annual carbon exchange among reservoirs of the sizes mentioned.
“Enough with this nonsense about rationalization after the fact!”
That is what you are doing. I am trying to open your eyes to your own efforts to convince yourself. There is nothing more arbitrary about my model than about yours.
The data are extensive, and they show the rate of change of concentration being driven by temperature anomaly.
“You see a flat trend in here anywhere?”
Yep. At a time that emissions rise 40%, there is no discernible increase in the rate of change of concentration.
“The rapid rise in the 19th to 20th century is clearly visible in Law Dome and other records. It has not been hammered down.”
The smoothing is not time invariant. The longer ago in the past, the more it is smoothed.
The ice core data cannot be independently corroborated, and so are not dispositive.
“My understanding is that…”
This is all narrative. It may be consistent with the data, but consistency with the data is not dispositive because the narrative is not uniquely explanatory.
‘Yep. At a time that emissions rise 40%, there is no discernible increase in the rate of change of concentration.’
You don’t need data. You see what you want to see, even when it is absent.
https://tinyurl.com/y9xpksjm
‘The data are extensive, and they show the rate of change of concentration being driven by temperature anomaly.’
FALSE.
They show limited correlation between 3 quantitities, co2 rate of change, ENSO, and global temperature.
They do not show cause and effect.
‘Extensive’? what other data?
“The smoothing is not time invariant. The longer ago in the past, the more it is smoothed.”
‘In the WAIS Divide ice core, each of the past 30,000 years of snowfall can be identified in individual layers of ice, with lower temporal resolution records extending to 68,000 years before present.’
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13799
‘Methods
Measurements of CO2 were made at Oregon State University, and CH4 measurements were made at Oregon State and Penn State University. CO2 measurements were made with a mechanical crushing system using methods described by Ahn et al.33. Approximately 1,030 measurements were made on ∼320 separate depths spanning the time frame of 23,0009,000 years BP with a median sampling resolution of 25 years.’
‘The ice core data cannot be independently corroborated, and so are not dispositive.’
Weasel words. It has been extensively calibrated to modern measurements.
The specific problem that you found with the data is what??
‘My understanding is that’
Ive read a few papers, I have a BASIC understanding of what they are doing.
‘This is all narrative. It may be consistent with the data, but consistency with the data is not dispositive because the narrative is not uniquely explanatory.’
If YOU want to overturn the Carbon Cycle paradigm, it is imperative that you understand what data and models it is built upon. Only then can you legitimately prove it has flaws.
I dont believe you or Salby have attempted to get a real understanding of it.
“You see what you want to see, even when it is absent.”
You are just showing there isn’t good correlation in general. I am additionally showing that in a specific interval, when emissions increased a full 40%, there was no discernible change in mean rate of change of concentration.
“They do not show cause and effect.”
They establish that human inputs are NOT a significant cause in the rise, because the two series are clearly linked, and there is no reason for the temperature to increase with the rate of change of CO2.
“Weasel words.”
Yeah, sure. Validation? We don’t need no stinkin’ validation!
“It has been extensively calibrated to modern measurements.”
I can calibrate temperatures to stock market indices. Doesn’t establish a causal connection.
“If YOU want to overturn the Carbon Cycle paradigm, it is imperative that you understand what data and models it is built upon.”
Is it imperative to understand the data and models for astrology before I reject it?
‘If YOU want to overturn the Carbon Cycle paradigm, it is imperative that you understand what data and models it is built upon.’
‘Is it imperative to understand the data and models for astrology before I reject it?’
Again with the ridiculous equivalences between real science and pseudoscience.
Proves my point. You don’t concern yourself with the extensive 60 y body of literature that the carbon cycle is built upon.
Because you assume it must be wrong. That is just purposeful lazy ignorance.
You think Planck and Einstein didnt have a deep understanding of classical physics?
You think Darwin didnt have a deep understanding of prior theories of evolution.
You think Copernicus didnt know the details of epicycle models?
“They establish that human inputs are NOT a significant cause in the rise, because the two series are clearly linked, and there is no reason for the temperature to increase with the rate of change of CO2.”
So you are saying that because there is this correlation, that that ESTABLISHES that another variable, emissions, is not the cause, even though emissions are also clearly correlated.
You don’t seem to understand that science is based on evidence. You don’t have any evidence of causation AT ALL.
You have 2 alternative correlated variables. One of them MAY be causative.
‘Validation? We dont need no stinkin validation!’
Of course ice core data has been validated in a number of ways. You have no idea in what ways the data has been validated or not. You have no specific problem with the data that you can point to that shows it is invalid. This is just a made up story of DOUBT that you would like people to have. Just like the tobacco industry making up doubts about the evidence of health problems of smoking.
Its no less valid then Roy’s satellite data inferring LT temperature from microwave absor*ption, which requires modeling and analysis.
“You are just showing there isnt good correlation in general.”
I am showing that the derivative is very noisy, as is often the case. There is lots of variability due to natural carbon emissions. And there are known mechanisms for that, such as ENSO and volcanoes.
Your statement that about trend NOT agreeing with emissions increase is not a statistically valid. Too much noise.
Your idea is that its ALL natural variation.
The alternative is that there is lots of natural variation plus anthro emissions. The long term trend in the data are consistent with that.
Here is an excellent paper showing all the steps taken to validate the data obtained from ice cores at Law Dome.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jgrd.50668
IMO it looks impressive. And this is just the work of one team.
They are now able to match atm CO2 rise up to ~ year 2000.
An interesting thing they are able to do is, using the drop in C13 ratio that they measure, they are able to show how much carbon flux went into ocean and land relative to the anthro flux input.
figure 5
‘Finally, we use a Kalman Filter Double Deconvolution to infer net natural CO2 fluxes between atmosphere, ocean, and land, which cause small δ13C deviations from the predominant anthropogenically induced δ13C decrease.’
I just don’t see how you can disregard this kind of data.
“Because you assume it must be wrong.”
It might be right, but only if a regime change occurred in the last 60 years. It is also immaterial. The best, most modern, most accurate, most direct measurements we have say that, in the modern era, the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 is proportional to appropriately baselined temperature anomaly.
“So you are saying that because there is this correlation, that that ESTABLISHES that another variable, emissions, is not the cause, even though emissions are also clearly correlated.”
Emissions are not clearly correlated. It’s just a depression, not a fingerprint.
“Your statement that about trend NOT agreeing with emissions increase is not a statistically valid. Too much noise.”
Not when there’s been a 40% rise in emissions. That should have produced a signal easily distinguishable from the noise. It didn’t.
“I just don’t see how you can disregard this kind of data.”
Because you can always make a model fit if your functional basis is dense enough. It’s just an elaborate way of confirming one’s prejudices.
The bottom line is, there is no getting around the match between the rate of change and the temperature anomaly. It is a protruding contradiction that cannot be papered over.
‘Because you can always make a model fit if your functional basis is dense enough. Its just an elaborate way of confirming ones prejudices.’
Again, with the ‘just fitting a narrative’ bullshit, as expected. Its almost as if experiments and data serve no purpose!
Yes they have prejudices: Known facts are likely true, standard physics and chemistry work, methods that have proven reliable before should be tried first. When these don’t work, innovate.
This is what scientists are supposed to do, whether its black holes merging and producing gravity waves, or Higgs bosons producing events that have to be modeled, or what Roy does with satellite data.
They are supposed to try existing methods and models to analyze and understand their data. They are supposed to try to fit their results into the paradigm built from all the other known facts and theory. Because that generally works!
Skeptics cannot just wildly wave hands dismissing all disagreeable data as unreliable. They have to find an ACTUAL FLAW in it.
Read the damn paper and find the flaw! Or if not, take the data on face value, and test your hypothesis with it.
Skeptics cannot just declare that paradigms are equally likely to be wrong as right. There has to be a preponderance of evidence.
We are nowhere close to having that.
‘Not when theres been a 40% rise in emissions. That should have produced a signal easily distinguishable from the noise. It didnt.’
Argument by assertion.
In any case the simple linear trend from 2000 shows an increase from 0.14 to 0.21, a 50% increase, for what its worth.
https://tinyurl.com/y9xpksjm
‘Emissions are not clearly correlated. Its just a depression, not a fingerprint.’
What depression?
The LF rise IS highly correlated with emissions.
It seems I have to constantly repeat that the Nooks and Crannies are not required to be correlated. No one denies that these are natural.
“It seems I have to constantly repeat that the Nooks and Crannies are not required to be correlated.”
You can assert it all you like. But, when you have one series that does fit all the nooks and crannies, and another that does not, it’s pretty apparent which one is the culprit.
I see nothing else here worth responding to.
‘The bottom line is, there is no getting around the match between the rate of change and the temperature anomaly. It is a protruding contradiction that cannot be papered over.’
I see.
Over time this similarity of increase between two observables has morphed into a definitive cause and effect relationship. A biblical truth that cannot be questioned, nor actually tested.
It has become the Michelson-Morley experiment of climate science, and then some.
Each time you bring it up, Bart, your certainty about its meaning only increases.
And yet, with all the climate science data being published, each time you come back you bring no new evidence.
It is astonishing.
Heres some ideas for next time that might actually persuade people:
Bring some real-world data on carbon reservoirs that supports the idea that anthro carbon cannot accumulate.
Bring some new data on measured carbon fluxes that support your models.
Bring some real evidence that the ice core data is invalid.
Bring some new analysis of isotopes that agrees with your models.
Bring a theoretical calculation of the scale factor between temp and co2 growth rate that uses real world numbers.
Bring a p-value analysis of your hypothesis that the prior relationship between second derivative of CO2 concentration and first derivative of emissions ends in the 2000s.
“Each time you bring it up, Bart, your certainty about its meaning only increases.”
Perhaps in your mind. My interpretation has never wavered. This relationship cannot be credibly dismissed as mere happenstance. And, the dynamics it indicates are much more consistent with behavior we expect of general dissipative systems.
‘This relationship cannot be credibly dismissed as mere happenstance.’
And yet the relationship to emissions with the just the right magnitude and history is incredibly dismissed as happenstance.
“And yet the relationship to emissions with the just the right magnitude and history is incredibly dismissed as happenstance.”
Because it is low information. It is easy to produce a spurious match with such low frequency signals, especially when the data are fudged in that direction. It is very hard to do it across the entire frequency spectrum. The temperature to CO2 rate of change matches across the entire spectrum.
I’m getting my wires crossed. That fudge is what they’ve done to try to produce a match between CO2 concentration as a driving force for temperature, not emissions as a driving force for concentration.
The main point is that it is not hard to get a spurious match with low frequency data. That is, indeed, easily happenstance.
The fudge noted above is only relevant in that it speaks to the willingness within advocacy circles to alter data and cut corners to fit preconceived notions.
On a scale of 1000 y, the match to emissions IS high frequency, a unique occurrence, and implausibly spurious.
https://wol-prod-cdn.literatumonline.com/cms/attachment/5bfc0b16-a0d7-4b55-8267-21c4069d303b/jgrd50668-fig-0005-m.jpg
These data have very good decadal time resolution,
“You can assert it all you like. But, when you have one series that does fit all the nooks and crannies, and another that does not, it’s pretty apparent which one is the culprit.”
You a logician, repeating this nakedly illogical strawman statement over and over again, is just baffling.
Anthro emissions must explain all CO2 variation, or they explain none.
How thick can you get?
As all of us agree, there are natural variations in sources and sinks of carbon.
Now humans have added a new source of carbon. Natural variations do not cease as a result.
But here is the crux of the issue. Science claims that anthro carbon emissions do indeed accumulate.
What is your evidence that this is, quantitatively, not possible?
“Anthro emissions must explain all CO2 variation, or they explain none.”
I love that coming after you accuse me of a straw man argument. No, the argument is that there is a candidate cause that explains essentially everything, and there is the anthropogenic emissions, which at best can only explain part.
You want to remove a part of the former, and substitute in the latter. That’s like taking a jigsaw piece that already fits, cutting it in two and discarding half, then wedging another piece in the gap you created.
“What is your evidence that this is, quantitatively, not possible?”
It’s not possible because the temperature relationship already explains the overwhelming majority of the rise.
It’s not possible because there is a fundamental disconnect with the narrative that CO2 levels were tightly regulated in a narrow band for centuries, then suddenly became ultra-sensitive to our inputs. That requires a fundamental shift from high bandwidth regulation to low, and there is no reason to imagine such a dramatic shift occurred. Moreover, such a shift would assuredly be accompanied by greater general variation above and beyond what we add.
It’s not possible because getting a 30% rise from a 3% additional input requires an implausibly, steeply nonlinear sensitivity.
It just doesn’t mesh with everything we know about general dynamic systems and their responses. It is a narrative created by people who do not understand such systems, and implies exotic behavior of the regulatory system which they do not have the background to understand they are tacitly imposing.
There really is no doubt about it. One day, you will look back on this and say: “Huh, that Bart guy actually knew what he was talking about. I wonder why I was so resistant to accepting what is now so obvious in retrospect.”
‘Anthro emissions must explain all CO2 variation, or they explain none.
‘I love that coming after you accuse me of a straw man argument.’
Cmon, I thought it was obvious that that is my summary of YOUR straw man argument.
‘Its not possible because the temperature relationship already explains the overwhelming majority of the rise.’
Illogical. An unproven hypothesis cannot be used as evidence of impossibility.
‘You want to remove a part of the former, and substitute in the latter. Thats like taking a jigsaw piece that already fits, cutting it in two and discarding half, then wedging another piece in the gap you created.’
No substituting of an unproven piece needed, just addition, which is proven.
‘Its not possible because there is a fundamental disconnect with the narrative that CO2 levels were tightly regulated in a narrow band for centuries, then suddenly became ultra-sensitive to our inputs. ‘
Our inputs were never as large as now. No extra sensitivity required.
‘That requires a fundamental shift from high bandwidth regulation to low, and there is no reason to imagine such a dramatic shift occurred. Moreover, such a shift would assuredly be accompanied by greater general variation above and beyond what we add.’
No idea what this means.
‘Its not possible because getting a 30% rise from a 3% additional input requires an implausibly, steeply nonlinear sensitivity.’
3% of what? This makes little sense to me.
Example that disagrees with that.
At home we have one of these soda making machines that adds CO2 to water in a bottle.
If I half-fill the bottle with water, and I add CO2 and seal it, it equilibrates quickly between air and water.
If I put it in the fridge, there is significant movement of CO2 between the reservoirs from air to water. If I take it out, that reverses. I can do this over and over again.
This is analogous to the seasons.
Now, I can add more CO2, and the quantity in both reservoirs increases, by say 3%. I can do this every day for 10 days, to get a total increase of 30%.
This works, so long as Im not letting out too much each time I open the bottle. Of course, after opening it 100 times, without refilling, a significant amount has leaked out.
This is analogous to the venting of the mixed-layer Co2 to the deep ocean, which takes 1000 y.
So why is this wrong? Quantitatively.
Don’t say something hand-wavy like ‘because its a dynamical system’
Do I really need to go into all the differences between a soda bottle that equilibrates in mere minutes, versus a planet-sized ocean with millennial overturning?
Actually, aside from scale, yes you do.
The point is this.
If the fast equilibrating reservoirs (R) for atm, biota, and ocean mixed-layer are modest in size, (they are), and the ratio of annual anthro emissions (A) to the sum of the reservoirs, A/sum(R), is not negligibly small (it isnt), then:
the soda bottle analogy, to first order, is apt, and emissions can accumulate.
What are the sizes of the R? What is your evidence that A/sum(R) is negligibly small?
It’s not apt at all. You cannot arbitrarily decouple fast and slow processes like this. You are just tailoring the outcome to what you want it to be.
‘ You cannot arbitrarily decouple fast and slow processes like this.’
The deep ocean carbon sink takes a thousand years to equilibrate with surface. That is VERY decoupled.
Why do you think otherwise?
The Earths fast-responding carbon reservoirs are what they are, not what you want them to be.
If they are not to large, than the movement of carbon between them will not prevent accumulation of emissions.
What are their sizes?
neville…”Thanks Roy, but can you also tell us what you think of the joint Royal Society/ NAS Q&A”.
The Royal Society have become a hotbed of alarmists. A couple of years ago they were forced by an internal faction to back off on their more extreme claims about global warming/climate change.
NAS used to be a reliable agency till they breached their protocol and inducted climate alarmists. Once the alarmists got a foothold they corrupted NAS bigtime by inducting more alarmists.
With the hockey stick investigation, MBH98, NAS bent over to give some credence to MBH98, although they did lambaste Mann et al for using pine tree bristlecone as a proxy to cover the 20th century. They also told them they could not claim unprecedented warming over 1000 years, reducing it to 400 years.
The IPCC disavowed MBH98 by redrawing the hockey stick with generous error bars to include the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period omitted by Mann et al. They reduced the unprecedented portion even further to 1850 onward.
An expert statistician appointed with NAS was not so kind. He agreed with McIntyre and McKitrick that the statistical analysis was bogus. M&M claimed white noise as an input to their algorithms would produce a hockey stick shape.
The statistician also lambasted section 9 of the IPCC reviews as being nepotic. They were mainly friends of Mann who cited only the work of each other.
When IPCC poobah Susan Solomon asked section 9 to review the hockey stick, they completely ignored her directive.
In a pathetic attempt to retrieve something, Bradley of MBH98 claimed the statistician had plagiarized him. He did not claim he was wrong, just that he had plagiarized him.
For cripes sake, the statistician had the authority to investigate him, why should anything quoted from Bradley’s work be classified as plagiarism? Even at that, the statistician did cite Bradley initially, explaining that he thought once was enough.
A further word on the Royal Society.
Circa 1840, the scientist Joule, tried to introduced his experiment before them in which he had proved that work and heat are equivalent. They laughed him out of the house.
It was not till another scientist of noble birth intervened on his behalf that the RS allowed his paper to be read.
The RS is riddled with this sort of la-tee-da ‘Royal’ nonsense. In fact, the UK has been riddled with that brain-dead nonsense forever. Although it’s not as bad these days. anyone connected to the nobility were at one time granted automatic status as officers in the armed forces.
During WWI and II, those idiots showed their incompetence on many occasions resulting in many infantry being slaughtered. At Dieppe, thousands of Canadians died needlessly on a ridiculous mission dreamed up by Mountbatten, who has Royal connections.
Mountbatten was later transferred to the Burma theatre and had it not been for General Bill Slim, and left to Mountbatten, the Allies would likely have lost to the Japs.
The IPCC disavowed MBH98 by redrawing the hockey stick with generous error bars to include the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period omitted by Mann et al.
Citation?
Tsk, MBH 1998 only goes back 600 years, not 1000 years.
This is Gordon’s first mistake, and it’s all downhill from there.
The IPCC disavowed MBH98 by redrawing the hockey stick with generous error bars to include the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period omitted by Mann et al.
There are error bars ( 2 sigma standard deviation) in the original MBH (1999) 1000 year reconstruction (bottom of the paper).
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/research/ONLINE-PREPRINTS/Millennium/mbh99.pdf
IPCC version also had 2 std deviation error bars and instrumental tick up at the end.
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/069.htm
MBH (1998) – the 600 year reconstruction – also has 2 standard deviation error bars.
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/mbh98.pdf
Which also are matched in the IPCC reproduction, linked above.
Gordon has no idea what he’s talking about.
Salby puts the exclamation point on Dr. Spencer’s point.
https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/what-is-really-behind-the-increase-in-atmospheric-co2/
He (Murry) certainly exhibits mild paranoia.
nurse crotchrot…”He (Murry) certainly exhibits mild paranoia”.
Paranoia??? Using mathematics as applied to the conservation of CO2 between atmosphere and surface? He proved his point unlike the alarmist faction who rely only on authority figures and dogma.
You seem to be one of the climate fascists inferred by Murray.
DMA…and very convincingly.
For his trouble, as a scientist with integrity, an Australian university banished him to minor chores outside of the climate department.
Climate fascism is alive and well in Australia.
Reminds me of how Peter Duesberg, a world-renowned expert on retroviruses, was banished by his university for claiming HIV could not cause AIDS.
It took more than 20 years for him to be vindicated by the scientist who discovered HIV, Luc Montagnier, who pointed out that HIV cannot harm a healthy immune system.
Any serious scientists would have noticed that deaths from AIDS in countries like the US, Canada, and Europe, where immune function of people is generally high, that AIDS deaths are a small fraction of 1%. Obviously, there are not many serious scientists in the HIV/AIDS camp.
The HIV/AIDS community still banishes those testing positive to a regimen of highly toxic drugs that the drug manufacturers have claimed cause AIDS, destroy livers and blood, and cannot cure HIV.
The only reason those people survive is because their immune systems are good.
Now we have the same issue with climate alarmists who are persecuting skeptics for opposing them. That went right up to Obama, the president of the US.
Duesberg was/is scientifically wrong, and dangerously so. Believing him would cost many people their lives.
Ed Berry is wrong. He claims that once a CO2 molecule leaves the atmosphere, another cannot take its place. Godawful science.
Where does Ed Berry claim that? Would you please be specific so we will know whether or not you truly are full of schit?
My God please shut up. Both of you. Salby is an idiot. DA is a prick who should apologise Nic Lewis.
No, I won’t shut up. DA does not belong in the same paragraph with Murry Salby.
Do you have some intimate relationship with his psychologist or are just popping off because you have a problem with his science?
Salby gets many many things wrong. A few of these discussed here:
https://skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-CO2-rise-natural.htm
Example, he simply dismisses data that disagrees with his ideas, such as the ice-core CO2 record.
Whenever there is a disagreement between his model and data, he assumes the data must be wrong.
Nate,
I don’t consider skeptical science authoritative. Do you? Wouldn’t it be better to use “published” sources?
Can you rebut Salby’s rationale for dismissing ice core data?
Salby has a history of sketchy behavior (Wiki):
“In 2005, the National Science Foundation opened an investigation into Salby’s federal funding arrangements and found that he had displayed “a pattern of deception [and] a lack of integrity” in his handling of federal grant money.[4] He resigned at Colorado in 2008 and became professor of climate risk at Macquarie University in Macquarie Park, New South Wales. In 2013 the university dismissed him on grounds of refusal to teach and misuse of university resources.[5]”
This a guy you want to believe?
Problems with the ice-core record:
The gist of the problems raised have to do with time resolution, a smearing over time, up to decades. The ice core people are aware of this and work hard to quantify it in their papers.
The ice-core record does capture the rapid 20th century rise in CO2 concentration. No other change of similar magnitude is found in the last 15000 y. No rise as high is seen for millions of years.
I fail to see how smearing over few decades solves the problem a record showing tiny change in CO2 (6 ppm) between the MWP and LIA, events that were supposed to last more than a century, and supposed to involve global temp change of 0.5 C or more.
Smearing over decades does not solve the problem that the ice core record shows 80 ppm rise in CO2 for ~ 5-8 C rise in global temperature after the last glacial maximum, over a period of many centuries.
None of these findings are consistent with a rise of CO2 of 120 ppm driven by a global temperature rise of ~ 1C.
Nate,
I will bookmark this conversation and try to take it up with you later, if and when I have time. And I will have to do it, because what causes CO2 rise is a major tenet of climate change–probably most important next to whether more CO2 will cause any more warming. I commend you for your efforts making your case, but I can’t agree with you without the same effort on my part.
Secondly, if Salby’s science is correct, I wouldn’t care if he was a mherderer.
Thirdly, your correlations are evidence but not proof of anything. Does Berry’s or Salby’s model fail? That is the answer I am interested in, not how a data fit reinforces your view of CO2 rise.
“Secondly, if Salbys science is correct, I wouldnt care if he was a mherderer.”
As a worldly-wise person (my wife) once said: “liars lie”.
So, assertions that standard science is wrong by Salby, ought to be considered fiction, until proven otherwise with overwhelming evidence.
He and buddies seek to overturn the carbon-cycle paradigm. But what evidence underlying the paradigm are they failing to consider or tell you about?
Looks like tons from my brief survey of the literature.
Chick,
Salby’s 2013 Lecture. I made the mistake of watching and trying to check its claims
He very confidently presents impressive math. Much of which appears fine.
The problems arise when he wants to claim its validation in the real world, and in he makes a series of big misrepresentations of the actual data.
Just a few examples.
1. He says human emissions are 5 GTons, in fact they were 10 GTons in that year.
http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/GCP/images/global_co2_emissions.jpg
He claims 150 tons natural and calls this ‘2 orders of magnitude’ higher. 150/10 = 15. FALSE two orders of magnitude ~ 100.
2. A BIG problem. His Plot at 10:12 shows derivative of CO2 and global temperature. I attempted to reproduce this graph here. He clearly has applied a low pass filter. I do that as well.
https://tinyurl.com/yd2xm2f5
But still, there is no way to get CO2 derivative and temperature to rise similarly, whilst matching also the fast wiggles. Here is my plot.
I conclude he manipulated the temperature data somehow.
3. He shows some fancy math and asserts the CO2 in ice core bubbles decreases dramatically over time by diffusion. JUST AN ASSERTION. Then claims the ice core record of long term CO2 concentration needs to be multiplied by a large factor -10x. Thus, he claims the sensitivity of CO2 to temperature is MUCH higher than believed. But gives NO EVIDENCE for this. It is just speculation.
4. He shows a map of CO2 conc over the glob from satellites, showing no increase over cities. FALSE. Many such maps can be found showing strong increases over cities.
5. At 44 min. He compares CO2 rate of changes with temp over only 1982-2010, sees strong correlation, but the long term slope is not a good match at all. See my plot above.
6. At 46:45 he introduces the induced component of co2 rise due to temperature. What he has done is taken the induced component for fast processes (#5), and ASSUMES that this relationship extends to slow processes over many decades. But there is NO direct evidence for this assumption. In fact the evidence we have contradicts this. See my graph above.
He shows a plot of the induced component from temperature vs rise in CO2. They match! But this induced component is simply made-up out of whole cloth.
There are more cheats and deceptions, but these are the main ones.
I co-authored my first scientific publication in 1972 and over the years have seen some huge errors made by all parties involved. I may be wrong on this, but in climate science it appears to me that many of the editors are the most at fault. It takes really no time at to see if the authors of a manuscript are part of the “party” or not. They then choose the reviewers with an outcome in mind.
ed…” I may be wrong on this, but in climate science it appears to me that many of the editors are the most at fault. It takes really no time at to see if the authors of a manuscript are part of the party or not. They then choose the reviewers with an outcome in mind”.
You’re not wrong.
“Party?”
So if you were an editor, you would reject papers no on their scientific veracity, but on what opinions you thought the authors held.
That’d be a disaster.
It will be interesting to see how much or if any media coverage is given to this. And how the Climate Left tries to salvage anything from the paper to support their position of doom and gloom.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/11/14/scientists-acknowledge-key-errors-study-how-fast-oceans-are-warming/
Thanks for the link David. Indeed many are becoming less alarmed by global warming and it is showing up now with more good reporting. However, opinions are formed over periods of time where credibility is lost and it takes time to rebuild it. And it takes even more time to get everybody on board with it.
What facts about global warming & climate change do you think imply less alarm?
I would say it began when the models went off track, which was just about the time they published in AR3 and by later AR’s they were saying that humans were responsible for half the observed warming, which frankly isn’t much.
I am unfamiliar with that paper. I don’t work in climate science and only rarely look at any papers in that discipline in any depth. I simply don’t have time for that. The exceptions tend to be where specific details of the statistics, math, or treatment of observational device attributes are of interest to me. My comments were not intended as a criticism of climate science in particular, but rather the general imperfection of the peer review process, for which this particular incident serves as an example. My experience indicates that it can be difficult to get a comprehensive review from the process. As a reviewer, I am parsimonious with my time. As an author I see the process as an opportunity to improve the communication capability of the paper so that as wide an audience as possible finds the material accessible and useful. Personally I am satisfied in general with the way it works, but the expectation that it will keep errors out of published work is somewhat optimistic. That is one reason I personally don’t recommend accepting a result simply because it appears in a peer reviewed paper, or even in many peer reviewed papers. If the result is that important to one’s work, one should delve into the nitty gritty details of the reference/paper oneself and duplicate the results as much as possible. All too frequently I have found important details left out or important calculations done incompletely (or sometimes erroneously) in previously published results and subsequent papers refer to the original work without critical assessment. (Again I am not speaking of climate science here and in no way mean this as a criticism in any way of someone’s views on some specific issue within that discipline.)
I did not even read the paper which seems to have people excited about their previously held views, but it appears it presents a new way of measuring something that some in the discipline feel is important. It has been my experience that a paper presenting something new in any discipline has an especially difficult time getting a good comprehensive review, through no fault of its own.
francis…”As a reviewer, I am parsimonious with my time”.
Why should a paper representing lengthy periods of research come down to your opinion as to whether it should be published?
Strikes me as abject arrogance, if not ignorance.
The peer in peer review does not mean a review by one person. The peer review should come AFTER the paper is published, which should be automatic.
THe purpose of peer review isn’t to assure a paper is right, it’s to see that it’s not obviously wrong, and that it adheres to basic scholarly standards.
Unfortunately you are right. I belong to a profession that takes peer review up to the next level. It would be good for science to follow that example, especially in the case of science that can foreseen to lead to unnecessary government interference in our lives. Of course though science is not a profession as it lacks licensing and uniform and enforceable standards.
Your peer review says a paper is correct?
How, exactly, is that done?
Where did I say it says a paper is correct? What peer review does is ensure errors in calculations aren’t made and that adequate evidence was collected and analyzed to support all the statements made in the paper.
That latter objective is routinely violated in the science community with lots of statements being made in papers where not a shred of evidence was presented.
1. “Parsimonious with time” means one should not commit to reviewing a paper unless one has sufficient time available in the time period allotted to do a thorough and careful review. It does not mean to skimp on time or effort in doing a review. If one does not have time available to do the review properly in the time frame required, one should pass on reviewing a paper.
2. Reviewer comments to the author are meant to improve the reader’s understanding of the work done, making sure that statements made are clearly supported by either the work itself or sufficient references. In addition, notation and terminology should be clearly defined and consistent within the paper and consistent with reader expectations in the field. Figures and tables should be explained and annotated sufficiently that they are clearly understood by the reader without having to refer back to the text of the paper unnecessarily. If particularly relevant references were not included they can be pointed out as well. Authors can sometimes be so intimately familiar with their work that they neglect to see how a general reader would not understand something in the manner it is presented.
3. As an author, reviewer’s comments that are detailed, substantial and insightful are a pleasure to receive as they invariably improve the quality of the final publication. Comments that clearly show an investment of time, effort and thought on the part of the reviewer are much better than summary statements or broad generalizations. Just as in blog comments such as these, it is much more helpful to have comment reference specific lines in the paper than to have a general comment made about making the paper easier to understand.
4. It is much better that a reviewer catch a mistake so that it can be corrected prior to publication. My understanding of this paper in question is that they meant to present a new way of measuring something of interest and importance to climate science. As such, that work in and of itself likely merited publication. The apparent mistake they made in claiming inferences from the new technique would much preferably have been corrected had a reviewer caught it, rather than having to correct it post publication. Modifying the inference in no way detracts from the central (apparent) result that a new way of measuring something useful is possible.
To those submitting papers, remember to respond with point-by-point rebuttals when appropriate. Reviewers do not decide which manuscripts get published. Editors do. And it is the editors who are to blame for this sorry state of affairs.
martha…”…it is the editors who are to blame for this sorry state of affairs”.
Any reviewer should realize that and abstain from participating in the chicanery.
Any scientist would *love* to get published in Nature and Science. And still will.
Cmon guys. You act like peer reviewers are supposed to be god-like. They are not. And never have been. Just part of the process. No mike-drops happen after one paper.
nate…”You act like peer reviewers are supposed to be god-like”.
Peer review is not part of the scientific method and there is no need for it. Publish the damned paper and allow the peers at large to review it.
As it stand, PR is censorship.
Real journals won’t publish junk, because they want to keep up their reputation, so scientists will subscribe and read them. And the scientific community doesn’t want to wade through the junk to get to the good papers.
Nowadays there are lots of predatory journals that will published *anything* if you send them $2000. They’re tailor-made for people like Gordon and Sheldon.
No way to tell if a paper is junk if all peer review does is ensure “its (the paper) not obviously wrong”. Such allows a lot of papers with very uncertain speculations to get published.
If you think peer review means a paper is totally correct, you are sadly mistaken.
See my statement above David. Nowhere did I say peer review ensures a paper is correct. Peer review determines whether a paper has adequate support to make a statement. Here adequate support would be the level of support detailed by the standards setting organization or government agency.
Papers paid by the author will serve the author, do not trust them.
Papers paid by the reader will suffer if their readers are deceived, prefer these.
‘Peer review is not part of the scientific method and there is no need for it.’
I know all the important science advances are written on blogs.
When the next Nobel laureate in medicine has a moment (in the can, maybe) to catch up on the latest developments in his/her field, they shouldn’t bother with the dozen articles that made it through peer review at the top medical journal.
Instead they they should read the hundreds of blog articles by Jenny McCarthy, etc, and all the articles emailed to then by other crackpots.
Right?
If the missing heat is proven to NOT be in the oceans then I take it sensitivity is on low end ?
The uncorrected paper implied that energy budget based climate sensitivity estimates were 0.2 low. The corrected paper implies 0.15 low.
Thus the Otto et al estimate of 2.0 should be 2.15 and Nic Lewis’ 1.5 should be 1.65.
I’m not sure that follows. The corrected version still has more warming than the mean of previous estimates.
It’s only one paper. The main (scientific) takeaway is that this may be a method worth refining.
Notice Roy didn’t mention the peer review that let his own erroneous paper be published.
Or the one that led to the resignation of the editor of the journal Remote Sciences for letting his paper through.
Roy has no ground here on which to cast aspersions.
I didn’t see any aspersions being cast by Roy. He said peer review tends to be sloppy. Much discussion has centered on sloppiness seems to have a relationship to how much prejudice the review has with the conclusions.
Such a total lack of standards in peer review allows for that to occur. In my profession people can be hurt (financially) by errors thus I am ecstatic when a peer reviewer finds the problem before anybody is harmed.
There is little doubt prejudice in a process without standards or liability leads to an uneven application of diligence in a peer review process, such unfortunately is a fact of human nature.
bill hunter says:
I didnt see any aspersions being cast by Roy.
Look at the title of his post.
The title of the paper is a statement of fact. If one is a thief calling a thief a thief isn’t an aspersion. Its a statement of fact. Its truth. Calling somebody a thief when there is no evidence he is thief would be an aspersion.
Just go take the hedgehog out of Uranus.
Science is becoming increasingly tribal as evidenced by the fact that there are now tens of thousands of scientific journals as John Staddon recently pointed out in Quillette.
https://quillette.com/2018/10/07/the-devolution-of-social-science/
While John was writing about the social sciences, things are going the same way in what used to be thought of as “Hard sciences”. For example “Climate Science” uses tribalism to defend itself by asserting that only people who are members of their tribe are competent to discuss their theories.
You may have a Nobel prize in physics or chemistry but if you disagree with the climate tribe your views are illegitimate. If science is to regain the respect of the general public it needs to become less tribal, more transparent, more accessible and more accountable.
gallopingcamel
Good post. I agree.
Like Norman, I believe G.C. hit the nail on the head. The statement is parallel to Dr. Spencer’s point in his Peer Review Blog.
“Science is becoming increasingly tribal as evidenced by the fact that there are now tens of thousands of scientific journals”
Relentless entropy at work. Always increasing.
No – the Internet has made “publishing” easy, with lots of reckless sites who will publish anything if you pay them.
“the Internet has made publishing easy, with lots of reckless sites who will publish anything if you pay them.”
Without any standards of peer review the same pay for scheme, whether its study funders, subscribers, or whatever paying the journal clearly exists. We have seen many old and respectable institutions fall into the political abyss. After all yellow journalism sells.
gallopingcamel says:
You may have a Nobel prize in physics or chemistry but if you disagree with the climate tribe your views are illegitimate.
No, you are wrong if, like Ivar Giaever, you don’t understand the science but spout off anyway. He has, sadly, made a spectacle of himself.
“I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don’t think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so – half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned.”
– Ivar Giaever, 2012, via https://skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html
Are there any climatalogist Nobel laureates other than Al Gore?
Well worth viewing Nobel laureate Ivvar Giaever’s talk in 2015.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_5az5OIX2k
Simple enough for even a climate blog gadfly like you to understand.
Ivar Giaever isn’t a climatologist.
Did I say so? That is not the point. I am not aware of any climate-related science for whom someone got a Nobel prize other than the ill-considered Al Gore and the IPCC. A Nobel Prize doesn’t ensure legitimacy, but what credibility trumps it without one?
DA is claiming that if you are not a member of the “Climate Tribe” your views are illegitimate.
I told him so upthread and he got the message.
To the “Climate Tribe” facts and evidence do not matter. Faith in the teachings of climate priests is what matters. The “Climate Science” is a religion that is in bed with crooked politicians. Do you think Al Gore and Barack Obama lost any money by lying about Climate Change?
Science is merely a fig leaf for people like that to hide their naked greed.
World’s Nobel Laureates And Preeminent Scientists Call On Government Leaders To Halt Global Warming – signed by a majority of the world’s Nobel winners in science – 98 out of 171.
October 2, 1997
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/10/971002070106.htm
Which of those 98 Nobel Prize scientists have debated Giaever or published opposing views since signing a “declaration?” Why didn’t the other 73 Nobel Laureates sign it? Science is not done by popular vote.
“No, you are wrong if, like Ivar Giaever, you dont understand the science but spout off anyway. He has, sadly, made a spectacle of himself.”
What is sad is how much is wrong with you.
1) You have no proof that Ivar Giaever doesn’t understand the science.
2) You have no proof that gallopingcamel doesn’t understand the science.
3) You disagreeing with either of them means nothing and there is evidence that both understand the science well.
4) You are the king of spouting off.
5) Ivar Giaever’s presentations are spectacular, whereas yours would probably be disgraceful. (Have you ever made one?)
Einstein, in his 70s, could no longer contribute or even comment sensibly on contemporary physics.
Let’s face it, decades of aging does damage to even genius brains.
Giaever was a very good experimenter. His work was important in its day, more than 50 y ago. Even he admits in his autobiography that serendipity had more to do with his Nobel than his genius.
Someone said “A Nobel Prize doesn’t ensure legitimacy”
And one in a different field, half a century ago, even less so.
And yet you pay attention to his views on climate science. Perhaps that has more to do with his POV agreeing with yours than any legitimacy he has?
There is thing called Nobel disease, in which aging Nobelists too often get nutty.
Pauling with vitamin C.
Luc Montagnier -AIDS not caused by HIV.
Josephson just went nuts.
Shockley-Eugenics
many more.
“Someone said ‘A Nobel Prize doesn’t ensure legitimacy.’”
What I said was “A Nobel Prize doesn’t ensure legitimacy, but what credibility trumps it without one?” IOW, if you challenge a Nobel Laureate (is that supposed to be capitalized?), you better have an unshakable counter argument. The skeptical science hit piece on Giaever doesn’t, because it is laced with assumptions that CO2 warms the planet. Still no definitive evidence of that.
DA…”fah: How did Christy and Roy’s notorious sign-error paper get through peer review?”
You have a nerve criticizing Roy and John after make the claim that IR from the Earth raises the temperature of the Sun.
We know where you’re coming from. You interview solely alarmists scientists, for want of a better word, while avoiding scientists who make sense, like Roy and John.
As you say David Appell is not worthy to pass judgement on his betters. He is like that mangy little cur that yaps at majestic horses.
The horses may mis-step or even stumble from time to time but they are still majestic while that cur is…….what he is.
Gordon: IR from the Earth *does* raise the temperature of the sun. Unless you think radiation carries no energy.
Now let’s talk about the UAH sign-error….
“IR from the Earth *does* raise the temperature of the sun. Unless you think radiation carries no energy.”
Do two bodies facing each other with a field of view of unity at the same temperature get hotter? Answer: It depends.
I don’t know what “Field of view of unity” means.
Field of view is the most important parameter for radiation to warm another body. You should look it up and read about it. Unity means the field of view is 1.0. Field of view can vary from zero to one.
Correction: That would be for “another radiating body” rather than generic “radiation”.
bill hunter says: “It depends.”
On what?
It depends because its impossible to stop the flow of heat so heat is always flowing at some rate. If heat is moving through walls and you insulate the last wall both opposing walls will warm. If you insulate the wall where the heat is incoming both walls will cool.
OK.
As Roy has pointed out, you have unqualified reviewers rejecting papers.
Peer review was not initially meant to reject papers from legitimate scientists, it was meant as a screen to keep laymen from publishing nonsense in scientific journals.
No qualified scientist should have a paper rejected.
The case of Barry Marshall should be held up as proof that peer review is rotten. He found that stomach ulcers are caused by heliobacter pylori, a bacteria that can live in stomach acid.
When he submitted a paper to that effect he was rejected with the journal editor listing his paper as one of the ten worst papers ever. Marshall proved his case by drinking a fluid containing H. Pylori and he because ill, with serious stomach issues and foul breath. He cured himself using antibiotics.
Following that proof, his paper was published and went on to be one of the most important scientific papers ever in medicine.
Peer review should be scrapped under its present form. There is no need to reject a paper from someone like Roy, and when climate poobahs like Kevin Trenberth can interfere in the process due to their status on IPCC reviews (both Coordinating Lead Authors), causing a journal editor to resign, then peer review has become political and biased.
Comment from Phil Jones of Had-crut in the Climategate email scandal re papers from UAH:
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” vowed Dr Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Jones and Trenberth were both co-ordinating lead authors on the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment report, published in 2007.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/05/remote_sensing_editor_resigns/
How deep does the peer review rot go?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review
That Guardian article mentions the tribalism of science which has got even worse with the passage of time.
Pushback is long overdue starting with cutting back on government funding of junk science.
Any progress on finding your missing 150 W/m2?
Generally if a paper makes dramatic claims extra careful review more necessary. For example in mathematics Shinichi Mochizuki claimed proof of a famous unsolved problem. Others have been reviewing his work for years and have not yet verified it.
What better proof of the weakness inherent in peer review than the January 2009 paper by Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman of the University of Illinois at Chicago, and their paper entitled Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change’?
This is the original ‘97% of scientists agree’ publication.
How this got through peer review I can’t imagine.
The ‘proof’ that the paper was wrong is what?
Nate: clearly you’ve never bothered to read this paper.
For your benefit, here’s how the time-worn statement that ‘97% of scientists agree that mankind is responsible for global warming’ was derived in the paper I’ve mentioned.
Comments in quotation marks are verbatim from the paper.
Survey questionnaires were sent to ‘10,257 Earth scientists’.
The paper explains that ‘This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey’.
These were:
1)‘When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained generally constant?’
2)‘Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?’
The survey was ‘designed to take less than 2 mins to complete’ and was administered online.
Firstly, note that of the 10,257 to whom the questionnaire was sent, only 3,146 individuals bothered to complete and return the survey – i.e. just short of 31%.
‘Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists’ – as opposed to for example oceanographers and palaeontologists. That’s 157 individuals out of the 3,146.
Of these 157, 79 scientists had published more than 50% of their recent research papers on the subject, and so were deemed by the authors to be ‘the most specialised and knowledgeable respondents’.
In other words, of the total of 10,257 considered knowledgeable enough to have their opinion sought at the outset of the study, only 79 individuals were by now considered to the most knowledgeable.
Of these 79, 76 (96.2%) answered ‘risen’ to question 1, and – wait for it – 75 out of 77 (97.4%) answered ‘yes’ to question 2.
So there we are – job done – 97.4% of scientists agree that humans are warming the planet significantly – or do they?
Let’s see now: 75 out of the 10,257 polled. I make that 0.73%.
Nate: the computer system has somewhat mangled my above reply en route, but you should be able to check the figures for yourself. The paper is a nonsensical statistical fiddle, yet got past peer review and into print.
My 7.51 am post has now been sorted out and can be easily read – thank you Dr. Spencer!
Roy has touched on an important point. Specialists are trained to do research not evaluate it. Every speciality in science, medicine, and economics needs a shadow speciality, meaning one having people trained and tasked with finding errors in that speciality’s research. Rewards in the latter field wouldn’t come from discovering something new and exciting. They’d come from exposing errors.
Baloney. Part of doing research is accurately understand and incorporating prior research.
Professional peer review has its own set of standards and procedures.
A good read is Michael Crichton’s State of Fear. Unfortunately scientists are a lot like many students who cram for an exam where the questions come straight out of the required reading textbook. Rote memory trumps understanding. Crichton’s story is largely developed on the tendency to take as gospel every sentence in a science study, even stuff that study did absolutely nothing to test. His plot added to that tendency a lot of bargaining by the study funders for speculative statements to be added in surrounding what actually was tested. These speculative statements then became facts in future studies. In my profession every single statement needs to be tested. Likewise peer review reviews tests for validity and mathematical accuracy. We even go so far to pull literature off client shelves that aren’t in the financial statements we write opinions on to help ensure consistency of message. That completeness is what sets professions apart from academia.
You’re a fool if you’re taking your science from Michael Crichton. He has no relevant expertise here.
That actually is not true. Crichton was a degreed biologist who worked in the field for sometime before taking up fiction writing. He spend enough time in the field to see how the sausage was made.
From 1966 to 2000 there were 100,000 published papers on “Reading Reasearch”. The National Reading Panel (NRP) headed by Donald Langenberg and concluded that only 428 of them met the standards .normally used in medical and behavioral research.
Thus about 0.4% met the panel’s standards, implying that the remaining 99.6% were not fit to advise public policy relating to teaching children to read.
So what are the standards used in medical and behavioral research? One issue is the statistical tests that apply. In behavioral research a “Two sigma” level is considered adequate whereas a “Three sigma” or better standard applies in “Hard Science”.
How many “Climate Science” papers would meet the standards of “Hard Science”? IMHO very few. Perhaps 1% will meet the lower standards that the NRP applied.
The important question is why do governments continue to throw money away on research that is mostly junk?
Then where are all your published disproofs of all these allegedly wrong papers? Should be easy based on your claim….
Easy? Actually not. A paper does not need to be wrong to be junk.
Again professions approach these problems with standards. A standard setting body whether it be governmental or professional body promulgates exacting standards to met by professionals working in the field. A reviewer or person familiar with the both the field and standards can fully comprehend the results of the work by understanding the standards under which the work is completed.
In many life sciences standards are difficult to set. In such cases often the approach is to use multiple approaches to find answers most consistent across multiple methods. Often this is inconclusive and estimates end up proving wrong. You are going to be wrong a lot more often if you cherry pick your methodologies to produce desired results.
In Climate Science the most interesting blog to watch from a peer review point of view has been Climate Audit because Steve McIntyre is a professional at exposing statistical junk in such matters as mine salting.
Where are Steve McIntyre’s published papers on all these errors? (Blog posts aren’t science.)
DA: your obsession with published papers is wearisome, to say the least. Do you really think think that someone’s views and criticisms are automatically invalid unless they’re published? Do you really think that the things that come out in coffee breaks in academic departments everywhere have no relevance unless they’re peer reviewed and published somewhere? Don’t be absurd – if a professional statistician has a comment or two to make about a paper, then it’s time to listen. If a biologist lists several possible causes for the death of some species of marine life in a given stretch of ocean or river it’s time to listen. Then there’s the research carried out in industry – confidential for commercial reasons, and then patented if promising. Who cares if Steve McIntyre has published papers or not on areas of concern? The important fact is whether he right or not, or perhaps raising an issue that needs further investigation. You are simply putting up a feeble reason to discredit everything that gets raised on a blog. True enough, nonsense does of course get onto blogs – but interesting and relevant matters are raised as well, so don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.
What the other guy said plus: Some of McIntyre’s work has been upheld by the NAS. The guy actually is the kind of peer reviewer that peer reviewers should be like, including his skill set for such a job is impeccable. The only reason guys like Steve McIntyre aren’t doing peer review is because nobody wants to pay for it. Peer review in the professions is a compensated activity often using both internal peer review and external peer review. In fact, an audit of financial statements of a company is very much like a peer review except that the auditors are not the peers of the business they audit.
Now if journals actually had an established professional peer review process then they could hold their head higher, but they don’t.
DA…or Anal Dave…”Where are Steve McIntyres published papers on all these errors? (Blog posts arent science.)”
Where in the scientific method is peer review required or published papers?
BTW…Mac’s partner, McKittrick has many published papers.
bill…”n Climate Science the most interesting blog to watch from a peer review point of view has been Climate Audit because Steve McIntyre is a professional at exposing statistical junk in such matters as mine salting”.
Steve Mac with his statistics partner, Ross McKiitrick, put the boots to the hockey stick. They exposed it as amateur math and their persistence forced the US government to investigate the chicanery. Eventually, the IPCC were forced to distance themselves from their former poster child study.
Mac went after the Had-crut record through Phil Jones, who refused him access to the data. Being a friend of Michael Mann of hockey stick fame he expressed fear that Mac would do the same to him.
Would someone please explain to me how CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 microns warms water given that ice emits 10.5 micron LWIR? Shouldn’t we first explain how CO2 warms water before we focus on the calculation errors? The entire concept is wrong from its start. The very fact the oceans are warming proves CO2 isn’t the cause of global warming.
CO2 warms the atmosphere.
The warmer air warms the ocean at the air-ocean boundary.
CO2’s signature isn’t even measured until you are up over 3km, and CO2 acts to cool, not warm the upper atmosphere. H2O saturates the lower atmosphere so CO2 is irrelevant. Just go use MODTRAN.
Saturation of absorp_tivity does not necessarily imply saturation of consequences. Emission from the atmosphere to Earth depends on emissivity (absorp_tivity) in MODTRAN & it also depends on the atmospheric temperature profile.
ball4…”Emission from the atmosphere to Earth depends on emissivity”
Sorry, it depends on temperature.
You don’t know what you are writing about Gordon.
CO2…”Would someone please explain to me how CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 microns warms water given that ice emits 10.5 micron LWIR?”
It can’t warm water unless it has a higher temperature than the water. Even at that, with a water mass the size of an ocean, it would take a whole lot of warmer CO2 to warm the oceans just a little bit.
The atmosphere does not have a whole lot of CO2.
Peer review is meaningless because the state of the science of climatology has been consumed by man made global warming.
Some how the current state of climatology is obsessed in trying to show how relevant man made global warming is despite the current temperature of the climate , rate in temperature change of the current climate , length of temperature change of the current climate, in no way being any different in any shape ,manner or form from all previous climatic changes when viewed against the historical climatic record.
To take it further the recent warmth coming out of the Little Ice Age has been mild in contrast to earlier times.
I also strongly believe that the run up in global temperatures recently has ended and now a down trend has just become established.
The seeds of this down trend were put into place around 2005 when natural climatic factors started to change and this change is still taking place. All natural factors are now in a down turn (led by solar)and this is going to continue as we move forward.
The item I am watching with keen interest is overall oceanic sea surface temperatures which should start to show a more definitive trend down as time moves forward. In addition geological activity ,snow cover, cloud cover on a global basis should continue to increase, while the atmospheric circulation features a more meridional pattern with lowering heights overall (500mb level for example).
All the above moderated by a weakening geo magnetic field, but instead of the science of climatology being devoted to all the areas I have just mentioned along with looking at the historical climatic record , it instead is transfixed on the global man made fiasco and trying relentlessly to prove this is what governs the climate. What a waste of time and this happens day in and day out as is evidenced by the latest article Dr. Spencer has just posted. We all relentless discuss the man made global warming scam in one form or another over and over and over again.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
February 20, 2018 at 6:37 PM
“Year 2018 the year AGW ends. Oceanic global temperatures only +.15c or so above means will be going lower and albedo is going to increase slightly all due to very low sustained solar activity.
“Very confident.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/diagnosing-climate-sensitivity-assuming-some-natural-warming/#comment-288281
Actual oceanic SST: +0.3 C and rising:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/
CO2isLife,
Re:LWIR cant heat water
This has been thoroughly debunked many times. I have explained it to you several times. Each time you ignore it, or are unable to refute it.
And again you have amnesia. Go back and look.
Nate, I sincerely apologize for not seeing your previous responses. If you have evidence that CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 microns can warm water I’d love to see it. Do you have the results of an actual experiment? Everything I’ve read makes it very clear that LWIR won’t penetrate water, that the energy in those wavelengths don’t contain much energy, and the fact that the air above the oceans is saturated with H2O that also absorb 13 to 18 micron LWIR CO2 is essentially insignificant. MODTRAN and a GasCell outputs also tell that same story. Here are my questions and I would greatly appreciate your response:
1) Do you have access to a lab and have you demonstrated that LWIR between 13 and 18 will warm water and not cool it through evaporation? There is a paradox here in that the evaporated water absorbs 13 to 18 LWIR.
2) LWIR between 13 and 18 is longer than the wavelength emitted by ice, how could those wavelengths melt ice? Ice emits 10.5 micron LWIR?
3) The air above the oceans holds 400 ppm CO2 but up to 4 parts per 100 of H2O. Any LWIR absorbed by CO2 that isn’t absorbed by H2O is of a negligible amount and what energy is absorbed would quickly defused to other molecules other than CO2.
4) The GasCell clearly demonstrates that more CO2 doesn’t “trap” more LWIR, it is already fully absorbed by 2 meters and you can’t “trap” more than 100%. More CO2 simply marginally lowers the height at which 100% is absorbed.
5) Have you run an experiment with 4% H2O and 400 ppm, 4% H2O and 200 ppm CO2, and 4% H2O and 0 PPm CO2 and recorded the marginal temperature differences of the water? If I heat a pool or water to a certain temperature, expose it to those various atmospheres, does the one with more CO2 cool at a slower rate? That is a pretty simple experiment to run as long as you do it in a thermos with a black body absorber as the top.
If someone would run that above experiment and show the results I’ll gladly accept that CO2 can, in fact, warm water.
“If I heat a pool or water to a certain temperature, expose it to those various atmospheres, does the one with more CO2 cool at a slower rate?”
i.e. in the ocean surface-atm. system, “Can Infrared Radiation Warm a Water Body?” that is free to evaporate.
“I sometimes see the claim (usually in comments on a blog post) that infrared radiation cannot warm a water body, because IR only affects the skin surface of the water, and any extra heating would be lost through evaporation.”
“As can be seen in the 5 minute temperature data overnight, the cooler with the IR shield stayed a little warmer.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/#comments
CO2islife,
1. Yes did an experiment using an IR ceramic heater (T=300 C) held a few inches above water. It rapidly heats the water.
Liquid water is a good black-body in IR, so of course it should abs*orb IR over a broad range.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_absor*ption_by_water
remove * to link
Why wouldnt it?
People say that mid IR only penetrates a micron.
Not a problem. The HEAT will penetrate a distance 750 microns ~ 1 mm in 1 s via conduction or 0.75 centimeters in 100 s.
https://thermtest.com/thermal-resources/heat-penetration-calculator#|timeinput_1
In fact, in the experiment, I probed temperature vs depth of the water with a thermocouple. The top surface 1 mm warmed quickly, but the heat penetrated to centimeters below the surface within minutes.
The IR spectrum of the ocean as viewed from space.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/10/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-emission-spectra/
You can clearly see that in the IR atm window, @ 10 microns, the ocean is emitting lots of IR to space. That is how remote sensing of ocean temp from space works!
While @ 13-18 microns, much of that radiation is getting abs*orbed by the atmosphere.
The CO2 GHE over the ocean in action…
And right on cue, CO2islife ignores facts that refute his claims, as he did many times before.
He will return in a few weeks to repeat the claims.
Nate I sent the explanation below it is so clear cut that CO2 does not warm the oceans.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm
IF YOU SCROLL DOWN TO AROUND ITEM 24 IT EXPLAINS WHY CO2 DOES NOT WARM THEOCEANS.
Item 24 shows CO2 does warm the oceans. Perhaps Salvatore points to the wrong item.
I read it differently and the point is CO2 does not warm the oceans and that is why it is on that list.
Here’s what I’m reading for #24 Salvatore, perhaps you are reading another item. Small ocean temperature warming but huge, huge amount of added thermodynamic internal energy in all that water.
Type of prediction Ocean warming
Actual measurements Warming of about 0.06 C over 50 years.
ACTUAL OCEAN WARMING – over past 50 years is not due to IR /CO2 , he is saying it is due to solar this is why he rates the model prediction on this item as being proven wrong.
That is why he is up to 24 wrong model predictions after evaluating this topic.
How much clearer can it be.
Score
0-1-0
Scoring is won-lost-tie system. A win means models and observations reasonably agree. A loss means significant disagreement. A tie means the models or observations give contradictory results.
AGW ocean warming was scored a LOSS – which means significant disagreement and I agree with him, who is Joe D’ Aleo. His web site is icecap
Salvatore del prete says:
May 1, 2018 at 9:46 AM
“I still say by the summer of 2018 global temperatures will be near a 0 deviation according to Dr. Spencers satellite data ,and in year 2019 at or below 1981-2010 averages.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2018-0-21-deg-c/#comment-299967
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“ACTUAL OCEAN WARMING over past 50 years is not due to IR /CO2 , he is saying it is due to solar this is why he rates the model prediction on this item as being proven wrong.”
Solar irradiance has been slowly decreasing since the 1960s. So how can it be responsible for warming?
TSI reconstruction/measurements 1610-2020:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction.png
The links he gives as sources are no longer available. There is no way to check if his writing is based on actual measurements or how they were done. Peer review is not even possible in this case. So it could be much more clear.
Dr. Spencer’s actual measurements and how they are done are consistent with what the author writes for 15 micron radiation so this passes peer review:
Type of prediction: Ocean warming
Actual measurements: Warming of about 0.06 C over 50 years.
Unclear is what the models show for warming caused by direct heating of thermal radiation at 15 microns since the links can’t be used for that purpose nor does the author specify the amount.
Apparently, the author gave the models a fail because actual measurements show much less direct heating of thermal radiation at 15 microns of 0.06 C over 50 years than an unknown amount of warming he claims the models show. No peer review possible but Salvatore gives it a pass anyway. Read the top post article again Salvatore, it is about failed peer review like you are doing here.
So I’d say your link is very unclear Salvatore & I would not pass it in current form.
David Appell: “Solar irradiance has been slowly decreasing since the 1960s. So how can it be responsible for warming?”
Actually its the mid 1980’s. But I am surprised you would ask that question. Haven’t you heard about feedback?
It does seem apparent on most graphs of natural warming and cooling of the planet that cooling appears to proceed more slowly than warming. About 1/2 to 1/4 the pace. It took over a century (after smoothing out multi-decadal oscillations in the record) to achieve about a degree of warming, maybe less depending upon the smoothing algorithm. Does that mean for that warming to go away will take 2 to 4 centuries? Seems plausible it could.
I don’t pretend to know the answers but what I do know is most people aren’t patient enough to deal with longterm issues. People get excited by ice and the Northwest passage opening and fail to note that it opened at the beginning of the previous century, closed, opened again at the middle of the previous century, closed, then opened again in 2007. Then they publish 40 year charts of declining ice and moan about the pending doom. Its all insane!
Simply put, where clouds decrease in amount, the water warms. It has nothing to do with carbon dioxide. A handy plot of the ISCCP results can be found as Figure 3 a
The above is right from item 24.
Ball it has nothing to do with CO2. Give it up. Asinine ,but then again the whole AGW theory is asinine.
That item is from the link which no longer works.
In your clip context they apparently mean where clouds decrease in amount the solar SW increases. The phrase ocean warming is from the initially absorbed LW IR energy at 15 micron earlier.
salvatore…”IF YOU SCROLL DOWN TO AROUND ITEM 24 IT EXPLAINS WHY CO2 DOES NOT WARM THEOCEANS.”
There’s a perfectly obvious reason. The ocean water and the atmosphere immediately above it must be in thermal equilibrium. There can be no heat transfer at thermal equilibrium.
The higher you go in the atmosphere the colder it gets. Heat cannot be transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface.
SW solar energy can warm the water, as you know, because it has the required energy to raise the electrons in the H and O atoms to higher energy levels. CO2 radiation from a cooler atmosphere cannot do that.
Reputable journal type peer review would have prevented Gordon 1:43am from being published. Another example of peer review issues.
A great snowstorm in the states of Pennsylvania and New York.
How IR warms the oceans.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2018/11/eli-explains-it-all-how-back-radiation.html
entropic man it is more AGW BS! Then again everything they say is BS!
Speaking of BS….
Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 22, 2017 at 6:47 AM
“I said year 2017 is going to be a transitional year in the climate.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/warming-in-the-tropics-even-the-new-rss-satellite-dataset-says-the-models-are-wrong/#comment-256278
—
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 2, 2018 at 6:13 AM
“Year 2018 is the first year I ever said was a transitional year.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2018-0-32-deg-c/#comment-314681
David global temperatures are in a down trend now not an uptrend.
Since when? Since the largest el Nino of the 21st century?
Salvatore: Prove it.
Salvatore should then do a peer review of EM’s link and explain where the BS is found, why, and which proper experiment has been reported supporting Salvatore’s review.
The article is based on in situ testing so Salvatore needs to find errors made in the experiments.
Salvatore is too emotionally invested to actually look at the science — even his own.
This “bunny” clown is the same one that promoted the “blue/green plate” nonsense.
And, the adoring groupies tag along, seemingly hoping for some kind of “bunny blessing”!
Pseudoscience, and “group think”, on parade.
Eli explains it by assuming backradiation “warms” the skin layer. Somewhat different than David’s “warms the atmosphere. The warmer air warms the ocean at the air-ocean boundary”
This is the smoking gun of CO2 alarmism. Few people can agree on how it works.
Eli explains it with an energy model. David uses the more controversial ‘warming’ language. The descriptions are not mutually exclusive.
It’s not that difficult. The Earth system has a vertical temperature profile that is, on average, fairly stable. The surface is warmer than either direction. It cools from the sea surface down deeper into the ocean, and also cools the higher you go through the troposphere from the surface.
Laws of thermo are that if any part of a steady-state, stratified thermal system warms (or cools), the rest of the layers warm (or cool) in response. EG, If the colder, deeper oceans warm – say from massive increase in submarine volcanic activity – then the top part of the oceans will also get warmer.
2nd Law fanatics who get it wrong would need to explain why the oceans and atmosphere are not a uniform temperature – why there is always a stable temp gradient (for the global average).
If they can explain why the temp gradient does not decay to a uniform temp at all depths and altitude, then maybe they can begin to understand why temperature change in one layer influences the other layers similarly.
Well correct me if I am wrong, but Eli says: “Now comes the elegant part, back radiation warms the skin layer. That means back radiation decreases the temperature difference between the skin layer and the mixing layer, Since convection depends on temperature difference, the rate of heat loss from the mixing layer decreases.”
Seems Eli says it warms the “cool” skin layer. So I have no idea what you are getting at. David says it warms the atmosphere which then warms presumably the skin layer. What many say is it energizes evaporation, cooling the skin layer and transporting heat via latent heat up into the atmosphere. To me it seems inconsistent between David and Eli, not the only time I have seen inconsistency. The first time I saw it as a massive condition was when Gerlich and Tscheuschner published a paper refuting the greenhouse theory and a blog was formed to create a reply to them. Hundreds of posts on that blog produced no reply because nobody could agree exactly about how Gerlich and Tscheuschner were wrong. Eventually somebody published a “slowing of cooling” reply a theory that has no need for a concept of backradiation warming the skin layer.
I didn’t check Entropic’s link – assumed it was to Eli’s green plate post. That’s strictly an energy equation.
So yes, Eli talks more of heat and temperature in his post on ocean heating.
Both actions occur – the atmosphere does warm because of GHGs, and SSTs and deeper warm as a result: if one layer of the atmos/ocean gets warmer, it slows the cooling rate of adjacent layers, and those layers warm also. And the ocean skin gets warmer because of back radiation (which includes the observation that the near-skin atmospheric layer is now warmer – warmer objects radiate more intensely). The same principle of slowed cooling applies for both, but the point of focus is slightly different in David ad Eli’s description. Eli is a bit more detailed, too.
The actual processes and qualifiers are so voluminous it would take pages. Every short-form description of the GH effect in situ is always a compromise between the naked complexity and digestibility. Anyone who wants a deeper explanation should start with Manabe and Wetherald (1967), and probably onto Ramanathan and Coakley (1978).
entropic…”How IR warms the oceans.”
Eli Rabbett was schooled on this by two experts in thermodynamics, Gerlich and Tscheuschner. They pointed out to him that the 2nd law is about heat, not IR.
Poor old Eli fails to get that and he will keep on rambling about heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer ocean that warmed the atmosphere.
None of the sources demonstrate that LWIR between 13 and 18 micron will warm water. For a “settled science” I would expect proving that CO2 can warm water would be a starting point, not a point that is never definitively addressed. My bet is that experiments have been run but the results are simply too devastating to the cause.
The key is you have to control for LWIR other than 13 to 18 microns. That hasn’t been done.
The experiment is very simple:
Experiment #1 Insulated Flask with Water and temperature regulated blackbody cap. CO2 0 PPM
Experiment #2 Insulated Flask with Water and temperature regulated blackbody cap. CO2 200 PPM
Experiment #3 Insulated Flask with Water and temperature regulated blackbody cap. CO2 400 PPM
Experiment #4 Insulated Flask with Water and temperature regulated blackbody cap. CO2 800 PPM
Any University Chemistry Lab should be able to run that experiment.
Your LWIR source is not from the total atm., you will need to get a flask as tall as the atm. for the proper optical depth. Dr. Spencer has already done that for you & with which to practice your peer review skills:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/#comments
That experiment doesn’t control for the marginal impact of CO2. No one denies the entire IR spectrum can warm water, in fact, I’m pretty sure it does. CO2 only radiates 13 to 18 micron. Someone needs to run the experiment to isolate the impact of additional CO2 on water temperature.
“That experiment doesn’t control for the marginal impact of CO2.”
Not relevant, CO2 is well mixed gas. There was no measurable change in CO2 ppm overnight or explain how you think it could change the results for peer review around here.
Dr. Spencer performed his experiment on the full atm. with natural LWIR & the results are the same physics as is happening in ocean waters overnight. You still need a flask as tall as the atm. for what you propose – simply not needed, use the atm.
Very simple. Multiple samples of water with varying amounts of CO2. Water warmed to identical temperatures, placed an insulated container with a blackbody lid. Measure the cooling rate of water exposed to varying concentrations of CO2. That isn’t rocket science.
Convection?
Horizontal heat transfer?
Vertical heat transfer?
Polar amplification?
Clouds?
“.. blackbody lid.”
Doesn’t exist.
“placed an insulated container”
Sure. Again, to to replicate Dr. Spencer’s results you will need to fund an insulated container ~100km tall, filled with atm., and through which icy cirrus pass.
And which (also) allows horizontal heat transfer.
Also, transfer into the land and ocean beneath the atmosphere. And out of them.
Ball 4- YOU CAN SPIN IT ALL YOU WANT YOU ARE WRONG AS USUAL.
It is not me Salvatore, I’m entirely using your source info. Practice your own peer review on your source Salvatore – why did you give it a pass without being able to check its references?
BALL it is you . I am very familiar with the person that wrote this which was done 10 years ago. I have known about it for 10 years not just now.
The reference is the person who wrote it . Let’s not start with peer review which is a bunch of crock.
Do your own peer review then Salvatore, contact your familiar person and get the links refreshed. Advise when you havwe them. Let some sun shine on them. Let the rest of us be able to check. Or do you prefer no FOIA, no sunlight. We all know where that has gone.
I prefer in this environment no sunlight
So Salvatore disagrees with the top post, the paper should have had no further peer review once it was published in Nature. In this environment I prefer sunlight on papers.
ball4…”Do your own peer review then Salvatore….”
Only butt-kissers need peer review.
DAVID- the problem for you and AGW is the global temperatures are no longer increasing and this has been going on for quite sometime.
Natural factors which were in an explosive warm mode last century started to turn into a cold mode in year 2005 and now the impacts of this are JUST starting to be felt upon the climate.
I may be fast with my prediction but the trend is going my way not yours. I rather be early then late when making this kind of a prediction. Err on the early side.
It is not a problem for AGW in a future period of the global temperatures no longer increasing & that circumstance going on for quite sometime. That has happened several times already over 2-5 years in the current UAH record. See Dr. Spencer’s last top post to complete your peer review.
When, if, the black line is drawn lower then it will be interesting what points discussions will cover.
ball – what is you point?
Point is this is wrong: “the problem for you and AGW is the global temperatures are no longer increasing”
There is no problem, that has already ocurred without problems for AGW.
ok ball, keep the scam alive.
Arrogant words for someone who’s EVERY predication has failed.
Salvatore, I keep no scam alive. Big scams do not survive proper peer review in any big way. As in the top post, there are errors that proper peer review can discover sometimes after publication date. This is what the test of time means, that is a hard one to pass.
ball4…”As in the top post, there are errors that proper peer review can discover sometimes”
How can proper peer review be done by one or two anonymous reviewers? And why should an editor have the power over whether or not a paper is correct?
In the time of Einstein, a journal editor refused to publish a paper from E because the idiot editor did not think it made sense.
Personally I wouldn’t call one or two proper, I’d just call that peer review. Any journal has a reputation to gain & protect, the more proper the review, the better the journal reputation over time.
Journals have a range of reputations. Editors have a range of accomplishments. Facts of life.
Gordon Robertson says:
In the time of Einstein, a journal editor refused to publish a paper from E because the idiot editor did not think it made sense.
1) Which paper?
2) So what?
Actually Gordon, the informed, critical, one & only peer reviewer didn’t think it made sense & the paper was corrected by Prof. Einstein before being published (in another journal of course!). The peer review process has had a lot of evolution.
A good read in the context of the top post, in part, covers some of the evolution.
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/1.2117822
Ball, thanks for that link. Peer reviewed worked.
Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds an acorn.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
DAVID- the problem for you and AGW is the global temperatures are no longer increasing and this has been going on for quite sometime.
False.
Linear trends for UAH LT v6.0:
5yr trend: +0.30 C/dec
10yr trend: +0.29 C/dec
15yr trend: +0.18 C/dec
20yr trend: +0.13 C/dec
25yr trend: +0.10 C/dec
30yr trend: +0.14 C/dec
why does it go back up at 30 years?
Because the influence of the 1998 el Nino on the trend is less pronounced when it is nearer the middle of the time series, rather than near one end. Once you get past 30 years in satellite data, the el Nino blips have less influence.
Eg, the trend 1979 to 2015 was 0.114 C/decade, and after the 2016 el Nino, that jumped up a whopping 0.01 C/decade to 0.125 C/decade.
With a long enough times series the big spikes and troughs make less of a difference. The periods DA chose are pretty short to begin with.
@David Appell
“Solar irradiance has been slowly decreasing since the 1960s. So how can it be responsible for warming?”
Simple, fewer clouds. That is in fact what has happened. It isn’t how hot the sun it, it is how much radiation reaches the surface, mostly the oceans, that matters.
Evidence for fewer clouds?
David Appell “Evidence for fewer clouds?”
If I produce it would you admit that I am correct? Would you admit that it makes sense that fewer clouds would likely result in a warmer ocean? How about if I even produce data showing a sharp decline in clouds right when temperatures step up in 1997? If you agree to admit that you were wrong and I am right if I produce such evidence, simply go visit my blog. It is the current post.
Evidence for fewer clouds?
CO2 IS LIFE- Solar activity has been decreasing for the last 50 years but from such a high level that it did not become sufficiently weak to have an overall cooling impact upon the climate until 2005.
Now we are seeing the start. 1st inning of cooling.
Thanks, my point was to highlight how even with a cooler sun you can have a warming globe. I as you expect cooling to begin shortly, if not already.
There are two aspects, 1) Radiance from the Sun and 2) irradiance of the surface. A hot sun with plenty of clouds means a cooling globe. A cool sun and no clouds and you get a warming earth.
Evidence?
PS: Clouds are a feedback, not a forcing.
Very good point CO2 is Life.
So is water. Does that mean no one drowns?
DA, is there any reality you can’t pervert?
There is a Nobel Prize in SCIENCE awaiting anyone that can develop a simple experiment to isolate the marginal impact of CO2 on water temperature. There are no experiments supporting CAGW. That one simple experiment could destroy the entire foundation of CAGW. Talk about revolutionary, disruptive, earth-shattering discovery.
Just a few observations supporting AGW:
“Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
Radiative forcing measured at Earths surface corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
David, where is a simple experiment demonstrating that the marginal impact of CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 can warm water? That is a simple experiment that isolated the affect CO2 has on temperature.
Also, think about that study you highlight in Nature. The one thing you need to do is control for atmospheric H2O. The one thing they didn’t do was control for atmospheric H20. It is as if they didn’t want to do a valid study. If they did, they would have done it in the driest part of Antarctica. They didn’t. They also could have done the same experiment in a flask in a lab. They didn’t. That study simply provided fodder for people that want to make it look like actual experimental evidence to support CAGW. It doesn’t.
co2…”where is a simple experiment demonstrating that the marginal impact of CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 can warm water?”
There is none. Heat cannot be transferred from a cooler source to a warmer target, especially a target that warmed them in the first place.
Heat can not be transferred from to anywhere as heat does not exist in nature – per Clausius. An object’s thermodynamic internal energy however can be increased and decreased by radiative, conductive and convective means.
Gordon, I would make one correction to that comment. Energy can go from cold to hot when energy is changed in form.
A cold match can suddenly ignite as chemical energy is converted to kinetic/thermal/radiative energy.
Very cold EM Radiation traveling through outer space can suddenly become hot as it hits our thermosphere and converted from cold em radiation to hot thermal energy.
But yes, heat normally transfers from hot to cold when it is all in the same form. The problem is the GHG effect is about converting one form of energy to another.
Gordon Robertson says:
Heat cannot be transferred from a cooler source to a warmer target
A gross misunderstanding of the 2LOT.
The Earth radiates in all directions. Some of that radiation reaches the Sun. Where does that radiation go — cite the science.
“Energy can go from cold to hot when energy is changed in form.”
The key to understanding that sort of process is the important use of the word energy.
No, the use of the word energy isn’t important.
Heat is being transferred from cold to hot *constantly* throughout the universe.
Or does your hand perceive a block of ice to be at zero Kelvin?
Energy is being transferred from cold to hot & hot to cold *constantly* throughout the universe.
Net energy however, one direction in any defined process, always, universe entropy must increase in a real process. The root cause is thermodynamics is a field of macro averages & that means fluctuations about that avg. always…ALWAYS exist.
You can use the word heat in any way you want David, heat doesn’t exist in nature, since precision experiments ruled heat out of physical existence in Clausius time – that’s a reason he set about writing the book.
Heat is the cause of, and solution to, all AGW problems.
Ball4 says:
Net energy however, one direction in any defined process
So?
The heat being transferred from cold to hot HAS A PHYSICAL EFFECT no less than that being transferred from hot to cold.
The former doesn’t just magically disappear into thin air, as some here seem to believe.
Heat has no physical existence in an object David, thus something that isn’t in an object can not transfer from that object to start not existing in another object.
Avoid the term heat and you will begin to make more sense, and write more sense, about the natural thermo. world around you.
Ball4 says:
Heat has no physical existence in an object
Then what’s in an Thanksgiving oven?
A processed turkey full of thermodynamic internal energy and sometimes stuffing. At a temperature (avg. KE) long enough to make the popper pop.
You wrote “Heat has no physical existence in an object.” So you can touch a Thanksgiving turkey and not get burned?
Sure. You can eat them too. But watch out if the avg. KE of the turkey’s constituent particles (temperature) is high enough, you might get burned.
David, from your linked abstract
“The evolution of the Earth’s climate has been extensively studied1,2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3,4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processesmost importantly the hydrological cyclethat are not well understood”
Why don’t these “scientists” simply isolate the effect in a lab?
co2…”Why dont these scientists simply isolate the effect in a lab?”
Because they lack the ability. None of them understand hard science.
Sadly I’m beginning to reach that exact same conclusion…and I’m not joking.
Gordon: Describe the lab that includes all the relevant climate features on Earth.
Describe the lab that includes all the relevant climate features on Earth.
BTW, David, the fact that you can’t produce evidence to prove your position greatly strengthens mine. The “evidence” you are producing pretty much proves that the entire field of climate science hasn’t even bothered to validate its most basic requirements. They do “experiments” without even considering the scientific method or appropriate controls. They reach conclusions based on faulty scientific practices. Your “evidence” does more to discredit climate science than to bolster its credibility.
My request is very simple, show me a simple CONTROLLED experiment isolating the marginal impact of CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 micron on water. That simply experiment will determine the credibility of the entire field of climate science. If the marginal impact of CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 microns can’t warm water it is game over for the hoax. It is that simple.
Fund & build a flask with an optical depth same as the natural atm. and the experiment will perform as does the atm. Once you have done that, report to a proper atm. science physics lab to run the controlled experiment for you. Allow them to have a CO2 cloud pass by in view of surface water in the apparatus.
There is no real need as Dr. Spencer has already shown what you seek in how the natural atm. LWIR affects the oceans water temperatures at night. And even how added icy cirrus clouds affect that temperature.
Controlled experiments don’t exist in climate science — it’s an observational science.
Next.
CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 micron must have the physical properties to do so. Those properties can be demonstrated in a lab. You can’t claim CO2 is warming the oceans without demonstrating that LWIR between 13 and 18 can actually warm water. That is easly demonstrated in an experiment.
BTW, yes a black body lid does exist, simply use a chunk of coal with a cooling line running through it.
Then simply use a chunk of coal with a cooling line running through it on your 100km tall insulated column. Or use the existing atm. such as the night time LWIR results on tubs of water from Dr. Spencer’s already completed experiment. Your choice.
The benefit of an experiment is that it is reproducible. Classrooms across the globe could demonstrate that CAGW is a hoax right in their classrooms. Countless people could repeat the experiment countless times. Real science could be brought to climate science.
Experiments can’t be done in climate science, because there is no control Earth to compare against.
This is true of lots of sciences, including geology, astronomy, medicine and environmental science.
cam…”Science is becoming increasingly tribal….”
I think Feynman expounded on that at one time. He claimed that soft sciences were expounding on science that had no rigour. In other words, they were doing nothing more than opining on a subject and passing their opinions off as fact.
That describes the climate science of the IPCC and its adherents to a tee. Many people calling themselves experts on climate science are nothing more than geographers, economists, and their ilk. They lack the in-depth understanding of physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics to make rigourous statements on science.
IMHO, that applies to all climate modellers. Even the more qualified ones like Hansen had a diluted understanding of physics. In the case of Hansen that was because he spent his time as a physicist in astronomy, another soft science.
Gavin Schmidt, a modeler, who now leads NASA GISS, absorbed everything Hansen taught him and Schmidt was a mathematician with a limited understanding of hard physics. Even his guru, Pierrehumbert, seems lacking in the basics of hard physics.
And let’s not forget, that in the Climategate email scandal, Mann referred to his crowd in tribal terms. He regarded anyone outside the clique with venom, casting chauvinist aspersions at Dr. Judith Curry.
Gordon Robertson says:
IMHO, that applies to all climate modellers.
Gordon, your O doesn’t amount to a chipmunk’s turd on a Rocky Mountain.
Yes climate science is a very soft science. Its somewhat akin to fishery science where stock assessments are made with predictions of stock productivity. Fortunately for most fisheries, a generation is not a long period of time.
In climate science everywhere you look the concept of a generation is extremely multifaceted.
Its similar to financial cycles being influenced by greed and panic. All very esoteric but very real influences. Enter the hockey stick in probably an ill-advised effort to limit skepticism that will most likely come to roost as a public distrust of science.
In financial auditing such graphs supporting financial projections are a huge problem, probably the number one issue right behind out and out fraud as a threat to financial stability and far more common than fraud.
Tribal is soft term for a cult.
Though tribal is more precise in regards to denoting primitive aspect.
The Global warming cult is primitive and reactionary.
The same can said about Marxism
If you could show the science was wrong, you would.
But you can’t, so you make all kind of ridiculous and desperate aspersions.
DA, the pseudoscience is wrong. You just are in denial.
So you make up all kinds of ridiculous and desperate aspersions.
By the way, the Resplandy et al results didn’t get much lower after their correction, but do now have a much larger error bar: they went from an oceanic heat uptake of 1.33 0.20 J/yr from 1961-2016 to 1.21 0.72 J/yr, a decrease of 9%.
Put a +/- symbol between the numbers above.
The error bars got so large as to really make the whole study next to meaningless.
“Nic Lewis Owes Resplandy et al an Apology,” 11/15/18
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2018/11/nic-lewis-owes-resplandy-et-al-apology.html
All those who promote AGW look back words instead of forward in time when trying to defend AGW.
They do that because they mistakenly think natural climate variability was not responsible for the bulk of the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age- year 2005.
They have hi jacked natural climatic variability to try to make it validate their false AGW theory. Trying to wrongly convey that some how the present climate is in some way different then it has ever been which is such rubbish.
One look at the historical climatic record shows the climate of today is in no way unique in regards to present temperature, rate of temperature change or persistence of temperature change. Not even close to being unique.
To their dismay the natural factors that were in a warming mode started to change to a colder mode in year 2005, and now after a lag time of 10+years this is starting to become more apparent.
Evidence is all over the place from a stop in the rise of the average global temperature, overall oceanic sea surface temperatures steady at best and no longer rising, to an increase in geological activity ,a more meridional atmospheric circulation pattern, and greater global cloud /snow coverage.
It is going to be interesting to see how the decline in overall global temperatures takes place. Will it be a slow steady decline like it has been for the past year or two or will it come in jerks of quick drops followed by a period of steady temperatures?
This asinine false theory(AGW) I am very confident of it being in it’s last days as the 1st inning of global cooling has now started to take place.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
November 28, 2017 at 8:00 AM
“Look out below global temperatures should be at or below 30 year means by next summer.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-273890
Salvatore Del Prete says:
It is going to be interesting to see how the decline in overall global temperatures takes place.
“By post 2014, like I have been saying, the temp. decline will become firmly established,” SvP 3/10/13.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2013-0-18-deg-c/#comment-71361
I might be early but better then being late. Cn not be late because saying it after it happens is useless you have to say before and if I am off some (meaning a little early) so what.
How long do we have to wait before we don;t get cooling before you admit to being wrong?
Awesome climate article at CBS Boston – which is the planet I currently live on
https://goo.gl/PQVs6b
Please note the following points relating to graph of US Northeast Jan-March averages:
(i) The graph was falsely attributed to Weatherbell when it clearly comes from NOAA. It agrees 100% with the NOAA data.
(ii) Despite the article being written this week, the graph stops in 2015. When 2016-18 is included, the trend jumps from -1.5 to -0.3.
(iii) Trend for each quarter (1996-2018):
…….. Jan-Mar: -0.3 F/decade
…….. Apr-Jun: +0.6 F/decade
…….. Jul-Sep: +1.0 F/decade
…….. Oct-Dec: +0.8 F/decade
…….. Annual: +0.5 F/decade
Global annual trend in same period:
…….. (Land and ocean): +0.32F/decade
…….. (Land Only): +0.52
So, in that period, the Northeast has warmed at pretty much the same rate as the global land surface.
So please tell me … why did they cherry pick the first three months of the year? Do you think perhaps that if that negative trend had happened Oct-Dec, that they would have cherry picked that quarter instead. Why did they ignore the last three years? Deliberate deception perhaps? And why did they attribute the graph to Weatherbell?
Final question: Do you believe everything you read in the media? Does it ever occur to you to check the data yourself?
Nicholas Lewis himself on global warming scam in video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpLVRPJnL4M
The error in the Keeling paper was caught after peer-review. Not ideal, but quite normal. Peer-review is necessary, but doesn’t mean a paper is necessarily perfect or even useful. This point doesn’t have much new to offer in Roy’s article.
But it is the launching pad for a claim that peer-review is biased. That claim needs a whole lot more substantiation than just this one paper.
Bias is a fact of life, but science eventually wins. I’m not seeing convincing evidence (plenty of assertion, though) that the system is so broken that the truth is suppressed. The comparison with the social sciences says more tome about the parlous state of social ‘science’ than anything else.
Medical science has had and still does have its share of dross and error getting through peer review. But it works well enough that we live longer and receive better medical care than ever this species has. Science works.
Barry:
Science works; GHG thermageddon is pseudo science. Name the major predictions the latter has got right. I will name the myriad that alarmists have got wrong. The models are basically junk. In science we only need one failure to dismiss the conjecture if its prediction was based on it. Prof Lindzen has called it a religion and should be defunded. Prof Happer talks of proponents with glazed eyes and chanting. Both these two have a very good understanding of this field and have little to gain as they are retired.
But let me tackle your earlier comment.
Eli Rabbett’s model is nonsense if it is designed to explain GHG effect which you now claim. Do you see any plates in the sky, green, blue or any other solid surfaces? His plate effect analogy can easily be shown do disintegrate by changing the ab*sorp*tivity / emi*ssivity which effect then runs in the opposite direction to the GHG conjecture.
We have discussed all this before. You were a participant when I asked him to put it to G&T as a rebuttal to their physics paper. He waffled in his usual cryptic style invoking Feynman diagrams – total crap instead of tackling G&T if he had anything of substance.
G&T clearly state that it is inappropriate to apply the SB relationships to supposed air layers and treat them as surfaces particularly at normal temperatures. Ultimately this is a physics paper which demolishes the GHG conjecture and still stands if no-one can rebut it. Eli Rabbett (Halpern) et al tried and got their butts kicked.
Your comment about a T gradient, which is the lapse rate in air, offers you no solice for the supposed dramatic GHG effect other than they help repair the lapse rate faster. In fact G&T did put out a standard physics treatment of the atmosphere which includes the lapse rate development. Has nothing to do with GHGs. I can dig it out if you wish.
The unmentionable D**C* provided good insights yet I noticed in his sole appearance not long ago you criticized his statement about the lapse rate in the Troposphere yet here you are in agreement. Oh I certainly saw what you did which was to create a straw man dismissing him by saying the Tropopause and Stratosphere had different lapse rates when he had only specified the Troposphere.
Pity he was so rude to Dr Roy and hence barred as he had a some good insights and would have helped control some of the nonsense which seems to have taken hold here.
“GHG thermageddon is pseudo science. Name the major predictions the latter has got right.”
I’m not familiar with ‘GHG thermageddon.’ I’ve never seen the term in formal papers or even mainstream science communication.
If you’re going to use such outlandish language, I wonder if a reasonable conversation is even possible. There are plenty of predictions arising from AGW that have come to pass.
Barry:
As to language I feel quite entitled to use the term “thermageddon” as a descriptor given the coverage of certain key players. Take Hansen and his 350ppm CO2 tipping point, Manhattan under water, CO2 so dire that it needs to be extracted from the atmosphere,
we have reached a point where we have a crisis, an emergency but people don’t know that (2008),
using children to file charges against the Govt on the dangers and his other rants.
Steven Hawking (2018):
“We are close to the tipping point where global warming becomes irreversible. Trump’s action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of two hundred and fifty degrees, and raining sulfuric acid.”
Alarmism is rife with Gore stating privately that fear is needed. Schneider admitted to exaggeration. Mann of course is unstoppable in using destructive weather events to portend the ominous future due to climate change. Our own GBH is in good shape despite the screeching of Prof Hughes, now feted for his ‘defence of science’ (ahem) when Dr. Peter Ridd in suggesting moderation in the conclusions ultimately got the sack.
Dissenting scientists not welcome; fired, ostracized or branded.
I could go on and spill over into the political narrative which is far worse. Gore’s film is part of school curriculum in places perhaps giving rise to a children’s march on Oz Parliament to protest, I guess reminiscent of the 3rd Crusade.
So where are the scientists protesting this travesty of science; dead on their feet perhaps. Where is the scientific method of settled science which should now be called fiat science judging by the environment and the cabal of scientists teaming up with DAs in the US?
Don’t misunderstand what I am saying; the leadership is the cause. I’m fully aware that there are many scientists just wanting to get on with their job and not have the politics intrude. They have certainly witnessed the fate of any dissenters from the “party line” and simply shut up or move on. I don’t blame them. Those that shut up are not the key players and don’t materially influence the policy decisions.
The facts are that this planet is better than any period in human history if judged by its capacity to provide and sustain humanity.
There is a comparative abundance of food with most of the world now in middle class. This is in no small measure due to increased CO2, higher T and fossil fuels. The biggest issue is International tension but no more than in the Cold War period. Perhaps this is why Angela Merkola criticised Trump for pulling out of Paris accord: ‘he doesn’t understand; this is about cooperation.’ Not a word about the putative dramatic danger of CO2!!!
Hawking’s comments are quite separate from the community of climate scientists. Hansen’s comments speak of an emergency, but not “thermogeddon.”
I have zero interest in what the news media have to say about the science. Hawking was not a climate scientist, and so you are producing the extreme fringes of thought on the matter and asking for a response.
If you want to talk about the science, fine. If you want to talk about the media and extreme quotes, there are no doubt interested parties who love to get into the ‘optics’ of the semi-popular soundbytes.
A California insurance commissioner is now an expert on thermageddon (term attributed by wiki to Greenpeace co-founder Robert Hunter in his 2003 book), more anecdotal evidence of “The Sorry State of Climate Science Peer Review”:
“(Camp Creek Fire) is the deadliest and most destructive fire in California history,” said (California Insurance Commissioner Dave) Jones. “Sadly, this is the new normal for California. And it’s only going to get worse because of climate change.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/16/fire-plagued-ca-wont-let-insurers-cram-through-big-rate-hikes.html
“His plate effect analogy can easily be shown do disintegrate by changing the ab*sorp*tivity / emi*ssivity which effect then runs in the opposite direction to the GHG conjecture.”
If I decide to intellectually change the working properties of a vacuum cleaner so that it pumps air out of the brush end rather than sucks air in, then I can say it does suck matter into it and doesn’t work as advertised.
Disintegrating the example doesn’t demolish the argument, I’m afraid, and Eli’s green plate is a n elegant explanation of how a cooler object, being warmed, can cause a warmer object to get even warmer – when there is an external heat source supplying steady input to the system.
It is a typical diversion of 2nd Law idiots to remove the external energy source; or to turn one side of the black bodies into a reflective surface, or to make the blue plate transparent.
None of this rebuts Eli’s model, any more than me painting a mirror black proves that mirrors don’t function as advertised.
As for lapse rate, my most recent comment re that has been in reply to someone who said that pressure determines temperature. I pointed out that the lapse rate reversed sign through the stratosphere. Why does it get warmer with altitude in that layer of the atmosphere, even as the pressure decreases?
Because pressure does not determine temperature.
Barry:
There are no lessons for physicists in Eli’s plates none that they don’t already know. If analysis of a system proposed is not allowed then state it. In that way your set of analogies will be able to show that black is white and white is black without scrutiny.
Your vacuum cleaner analogy is equally pointless; vacs come with instructions.
The earth is considered a closed system. Eli’s plates are an open system. So we already have a starting problem with the analogy as it is meant to simulate how GHG work in the atmosphere. G&T say in part:
that even today the “atmospheric greenhouse effect” does not appear
– in any fundamental work on thermodynamics
– in any fundamental work on physical kinetics
– in any fundamental work on radiation theory
– that the definitions given in the literature beyond straight physics are very different and, partly, contradict each other.
More and more, the main tactic of CO2-greenhouse gas defenders seems to be to hide behind a mountain of pseudo-explanations that are unrelated to an academic education or even to physics training.
The points discussed here were to answer whether the supposed atmospheric effect in question has a physical basis. It does not.
In summary, no atmospheric greenhouse effect, nor in particular a CO2-greenhouse effect, is permissible in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics.
In back tracking through the posts trying to find the D* C* comment to which I had I referred (which I did not find as it was earlier than this month) I came across your diving tank pressure analogy issue. No-one says that pressurizing a tank to a high uniform P and then at equilibrium will be any hotter than its surroundings. Again it is a totally inappropriate analogy and I suggest you read the instructions to understand it. I don’t have a link but this will explain it.
On The Barometric Formulas And Their Derivation From
Hydrodynamics and Thermodynamics
Version 2.0 (March 9, 2010) (G&T)
This is based on the Ideal Gas Laws so that it cannot then be used for lapse rate changes in the Tropopause and Stratosphere where other processes dominate. That is why D** C** confined himself to the Troposphere.
In the Stratosphere a mix of chemical reactions take place, abs*orp*tion of UV formation of Ozone and release of heat as well as stratification. One interesting conjecture for the Tropopause is the temporary formation of multimers with changes including latent heat (Rowan Connolly).
Sorry Barry, but a similar post appears much further down…
had been trying to post but the D* C* (but I had more characters) preventing it from posting and finally ended at the end of this file comments.
The earth is considered a closed system.
This. Is. Nonsense.
A closed system is impervious to the transfer or loss of matter or energy to or from that system. That’s clearly not the case with the SUN constantly providing energy to the Earth system.
Eli mentions this in his original green plate example:
“What is happening is that one does not have just a hot body and a cold body, but a really hot body, the sun, constantly heating a colder (much), but still warm body the Earth, which then radiates the same amount of energy to space.”
Eli doesn’t consider the Earth a closed system, so your charge here doesn’t apply to Eli’s model.
Eli also speaks specifically to the motion you’ve mentioned here further down in the comments:
However, and here is what folk miss, if you have a heat source, like the sun, heating the warm body at a constant rate while it cools by radiation, the warm body will become hotter if there is a colder body near it because of the interchange of radiative energy between them.
Eli does not think the Earth is a closed system. The blue plate is the surface, the green plate is the (‘greenhouse’) atmosphere, and his model includes the sun.
There’s even several pictures with the sun included, providing energy to the plate system, which is the analog for the surface and atmosphere.
Eli is quite familiar with 2nd Law idiots forgetting the external heat source. He says in the comments:
“You did notice the heat source off to the left in all those diagrams? Maybe not, but it is hard discussing things with the conveniently oblivious”
The sun is included in Eli’s example. No getting around that with words.
Who the hell says the Earth is a closed system WRT radiation? That’s just nonsense. Even WRT matter the Earth is not a closed system, but it is often treated as such because the exchange is so small. This is absolutely not the case with radiation.
Barry:
Why write all this when you did not check first. Energy entering a closed system has to come from somewhere so what does that have to do with the earth being a closed system?
Closed systems Closed systems exchange energy but not matter with an outside system. Though they are typically portions of larger systems, they are not in complete contact. The Earth is essentially a closed system; it obtains lots of energy from the Sun but the exchange of matter with the outside is almost zero.
https://www.bluffton.edu/homepages/facstaff/bergerd/NSC_111/thermo2.html
Is this your way of trying to avoid addressing the issues I raised.
“The earth is considered a closed system. Eli’s plates are an open system.”
They are both closed, by your definition, Tony.
Both open, wrt energy flow, both closed wrt to matter flow.
“The earth is considered a closed system. Eli’s plates are an open system.”
The earth system is a reasonably closed system WITH the atm. in place.
The green plate is added to show the basic 1LOT, 2LOT, Planck Law physics of adding an atm. to a planet so both are dealing with an open system exchanging matter with an outside system.
Only the case with the Green plate IN PLACE is analogous to the Earth, and it is solved with it in place.
The example starts with closed systems Earth w/no atm. and blue plate, both systems in equilibrium.
The example is then turned into two open systems when atm. and green plate are added and disequilibrium results.
The example is then closed again with both atm. and green plate in place at higher mass than original system.
During solar minimum California can not rely on rainfall associated with El Niño.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=namer×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Sorry.
During solar minimum California can not rely on rainfall associated with El Nino.
Precedent please.
bob…”Precedent please.”
Where’s the precedent that CO2, at 0.04% of the atmosphere is warming it?
Where’s the scientific evidence that back-radiation from cooler GHGs can raise the temperature of the surface that warmed them?
Where’s the evidence that GHGs can TRAP heat? That’s skin to claiming that gas molecules can trap gas molecules.
“Thats skin to claiming that gas molecules can trap gas molecules.”
HUH???
In a few days, the air from West Siberia will freeze Europe.
Ren you have it so correct and all the signs are starting to come in from an increase in geological activity, to a more meridional atmospheric circulation , to increase in global snow cover/cloud cover, not to mention the global average temperature has stopped rising.
My number one watch is going to be overall average oceanic sea surface temperatures which should continue to decline overall in response to low solar.
Continue to decline? Current temps are what they have been since the end of the 2016 el Nino.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Salvatore, look at the pattern of the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-94.05,64.02,340
Yes I see Ren.
Yet again, where is your title, data source and legend?
What I’ve learned from the climate alarmists on this blog:
1) Real Science and Experimentation can’t be applied to climate science because you can’t fit a climate in a bottle.
2) Invalid science experiments qualify as evidence if the results support CO2 as the cause of the warming.
3) When a climate alarmists is given a reasonable experiment to prove or disprove their position they reject it.
4) Climate alarmists always frame the argument so that you have to rely on computer models, and that the outcome is only valid if it supports CO2
5) No non-CO2 centric climate model would ever pass Peer-Review even if it has superior forecasting and R Squared
It simply appears that climate alarmists just want to support a conclusion regardless of its validity.
1) You don’t need a column of atm to test whether or not LWIR between 13 and 18 micron will warm water, that is a simple yes or no question on which all CAGW rests
2) The fact that this question hasn’t been definitively answered proves CLimate Alarmists aren’t seriously seeking the truth
3) A NOBEL Prize in SCIENCE awaits anyone willing to test the hypothesis that CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 warms water.
“1) You don’t need a column of atm to test whether or not LWIR between 13 and 18 micron will warm water, that is a simple yes or no question on which all CAGW rests.”
To answer how the actual atm. optical depth affects surface water, you do need to work with the atm. as did Dr. Spencer – that’s a reason he used that particular setup. Or you don’t understand optical depth.
Besides, you would just reject any experimental yes answer to whether or not LWIR between 13 and 18 micron will warm water as you would criticize the experimenter, the experimenter’s education, or even the results. Others would reject the experiment if the atm. wasn’t involved.
Besides that your experiment is not well posed. As stated, you are just advocating testing the 1LOT which has survived all tests to date. Many are or would judge your experiment as a waste of time.
ball4…”To answer how the actual atm. optical depth affects surface water, you do need to work with the atm. ”
You first need to work with the laws of physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics.
Heat cannot be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface that warmed it.
Heat doesn’t exist in an object so it can not be transferred Gordon. Energy can be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface that warmed it perfectly in compliance with the second law.
“Laws of thermo are that if any part of a steady-state, stratified thermal system warms (or cools), the rest of the layers warm (or cool) in response. . . . .2nd Law fanatics who get it wrong would need to explain why the oceans and atmosphere are not a uniform temperature why there is always a stable temp gradient (for the global average).”
I would say most likely essentially the same mechanism, which if so, we would know its not CO2.
bill…”. . . .2nd Law fanatics who get it wrong would need to explain why the oceans and atmosphere are not a uniform temperature why there is always a stable temp gradient ”
To whomever originated the quote…there is a temperature gradient because there is a pressure gradient created by gravity. As pressure decreases, unless there is a significant change in volume to compensate, the temperature has to drop.
Ideal Gas Equation
Re 2nd law fanatics…this is not about the 2nd law. The 2nd law comes into it when alarmists claim heat can be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface that warmed it.
Not possible. The pseudo-science of a net energy balance satisfying the 2nd law is hogwash. The 2nd law applies only to heat and a generic energy does not apply.
The 2nd law perfectly allows the claim energy can be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface that warmed it. Gordon needs to understand heat is not contained in an object and also the 2nd law is an entropy law.
The 2nd law does not allow the movement of heat from a cool object to a warm object. From an energy standpoint one can “claim” backradiation, but back radiation is a figment of the current popular notion of light as a particle that transmits in all directions.
When you look closely at the issue its really an unnecessary complication because net sensible heat energy always is moving from the warmer object to the cooler object. I hold the view that its uncertain that anything is warmed by backradiation except in a statistical sense of preventing an object from rapid cooling. At least I have never seen anything exploring the issue deeper.
One can argue that the slowing of cooling provides a higher starting point for when the sun comes back up and results in a higher maximum temperature.
I have my doubts about that and do note that we are not regaled with the statistics (trends in maximum and minimum temperatures) that would say something about that.
I assume we don’t because we never get anything unless it can make an alarmist case. . . .like Dr. Lonnie Thompson’s once annual assessment of the qori kalis glacier that he abruptly stop issuing annual papers on after 2007. Now he writes about other glaciers in that area and sometimes mentions he popped in on qori kalis and apparently had nothing else to write about.
OK, I keep hearing the Climate Alarmist claim that you can’t run experiments in Climate Change. The fact is that you can, and the fact that the Climate Alarmists have avoided doing so raises my suspicions.
1) You don’t need columns of CO2, what you need is the impact of CO2. CO2 isn’t important, the marginal change in W/M^2 is. CO2 doesn’t warm water, LWIR between 13 and 18 micron is claimed to.
2) You can use MODTRAN looking up to identify the marginal impact of CO2 on downward LWIR between 13 and 18 microns.
3) From there all you need is to add an additional 1 to 3 W/M^2 of LWIR between 13 and 18 micron and measure if it slows the cooling of water.
Facts are creative people could easily find experiments to prove the basic fundamentals of Climate Change. They just choose not to.
“2) You can use MODTRAN looking up to identify the marginal impact of CO2 on downward LWIR between 13 and 18 microns.”
No you can not. The program does not re-compute the consequences of changes in LWIR on the atm. temperature profile.
Nice Try Ball4, you seem desperate to prevent someone from disproving the CAGW myth. MODTRAN records the marginal changes of W/M^2 for various amounts of CO2. What you need is the marginal change in W/M^2. CO2 is simply the cause of the change in W/M^2. What is important isn’t the cause but the effect. Once again, that is a Nobel Prize winning experiment if anyone wants to pick it up. My bet is there is no way the marginal change in W/M^2 of 13 to 18 micron LWIR will warm/slow the cooling of water. As I’ve said, ice emits 10.5 micron LWIR. You can’t even melt ice with 13 to 18 LWIR.
“you seem desperate to prevent someone from disproving the CAGW myth.”
Not at all. I’m pointing out where you are wrong about the basic physics.
“What is important isn’t the cause but the effect.”
And the effect of 13-18 LWIR on the surface includes the temperature profile of the atm. Saturation of lines is only part of the effect, you are missing an important basic physics.
Seems you think your ill posed test can have an impact, why not run it and observe the impact it has? Because you know there will be no impact on basic science & it is a waste of time as Dr. Spencer’s experiment is already reasonably good enough.
CO2isLife
YOU: “As Ive said, ice emits 10.5 micron LWIR. You cant even melt ice with 13 to 18 LWIR.”
First Ice emits a lot more than 10.5 micron LWIR. It emits in nearly the entire band of IR. What you refer to might be the peak wavelength for ice at freezing temperature. Wein’s Law.
You can easily melt ice with 13-18 micron LWIR. What matters is the wattage not the wavelength of the EMR. That is why microwave energy can cook food.
I really am clueless of what you are attempting to state.
If you have enough watts of that band it will be absorbed by the ice and melt. You can use a strong IR source and have a filter that only allows this band through.
Ice at near freezing may emit 300 watts/m^2. If the IR through your filter exceeds that wattage then the ice will melt.
@Norman “You can easily melt ice with 13-18 micron LWIR. What matters is the wattage not the wavelength of the EMR. That is why microwave energy can cook food.”
No denying that, but we are dealing with real-world examples where CO2 alters the W/M^2 by very little. No natural source produces the wattage of your microwave oven. The Earth emits around 10 microns, or a temperature of around 18 degree C. My point is that for an object that emits a peak of 15 microns it has a temperature between -50 and -110 degree C. CO2 spectrum is of a very very cold object. My point is that a block of ice is emitting more energy in LWIR than CO2 does. Once again, MODTRAN identifies the W/M^2 emitted by CO2. Shine it on a block of ice. It won’t melt the ice. BTW, that is why the CO2 spike at 15 microns peaks at the 220k. That is the temperature of CO2. No matter how much CO2 you add to the atmosphere it never cracks 220k. Check it yourself in MODTRAN. Also, changing CO2 from 280 to 400 altered the outgoing LWIR by 1.5 W/M^2. Shine that on ice and see what happens. Absolutely nothing.
BTW, if you change the settings on MODTRAN to “Looking up” and measure what W/M^2 is actually directed back towards the earth/oceans to warm them, the change in W/M^2 is less than 1 when you use pre-industrial 280 ppm and today’s 400 ppm. We are told to believe that 0.6 W/M^2 of 13 to 18 Micron LWIR is causing catastrophic climate change and warming the oceans. Does anyone honestly believe that an extra 0.6 W/M^2 of LWIR that doesn’t even penetrate the oceans can warm them?
BTW, 1000 W/M^2 or 0.4 to 0.7 Micron Visible Radiation flys right through the atmospheric window and doesn’t warm the atmosphere. You can shine as many W/M^2 of Radar Radiation on ice and it will just pass through it, so it isn’t just the W/M^2, it is the material that it passes through as well. If the material doesn’t absorb it, the W/M^2 doesn’t matter.
Norman, you STILL can’t spell Wien’s correctly. You just can’t learn.
And, a microwave oven can NOT melt ice. The ice must first start melting due to the ambient temperature, then the microwave can heat the water which can then melt the ice.
Microwaves bounce off ice.
You can’t learn physics, either.
CO2isLife
You could not use the blackbody emission spectrum to determine the temperature of emitting CO2. CO2 only emits in a few bands regardless of how hot the gas is.
https://www.wou.edu/las/physci/ch371/lecture/lecture8/img012.gif
The way you can determine CO2 temperature is to measure the actual energy you receive in the CO2 bands and use CO2 emissivity (which is around 0.20 at sea level pressure).
Even though CO2 emits only in the 4 and 15 micron bands of IR it can still emit considerable amounts of energy. Ice will absorb almost all this energy and hence can be melted by the emission of CO2, it would depend upon the watts of energy emitted by the CO2.
JDHuffman
Again with the poor reading comprehension. Get lost pest.
I am enjoying discussing ideas with CO2isLife. This poster possesses reading skills and is not annoying. They seem interested in trying to figure out the truth and science of the issue. Your goal is to annoy and taunt and troll. Boring crap and you don’t stop doing it. So for the time, if I am not commenting to you, get lost and let adults discuss rational science without the little kid jumping in that doesn’t know how to read.
“Even though CO2 emits only in the 4 and 15 micron bands of IR it can still emit considerable amounts of energy.”
No Norman, the bulk of the energy comes from the 15μ range. That means less energy than from an ice cube!
“Ice will absorb almost all this energy and hence can be melted by the emission of CO2…”
If you did some research, you would find this is incorrect. But, you know how much you despise facts….
JDHuffman
Oh no you posted again!
Here are the facts that you hate.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a443824.pdf
Ice absorbs almost the entire band of IR. Basically you don’t know what you are talking about but feel the need to pretend you do.
ME: “Even though CO2 emits only in the 4 and 15 micron bands of IR it can still emit considerable amounts of energy.”
YOU: “No Norman, the bulk of the energy comes from the 15μ range. That means less energy than from an ice cube!”
You don’t know what you are talking about but it seems you must post something. Not sure why you do this.
You can’t understand it, my posts are to a more intelligent poster that might understand the points. Waste of time trying to reason with a foolish person like you. Nothing to be gained by it. You are clueless and too dumb to know it.
Norman, you appear to want to argue with me, but you ended up arguing with yourself, again.
I was referring to only the IR from atmospheric CO2. You are referring to the entire IR spectrum.
You’re welcome to try again.
JDHuffman
I keep forgetting your reading comprehension is almost non existent. I guess I need to consider this when I try to respond to you.
When I stated: “Even though CO2 emits only in the 4 and 15 micron bandy process lines of thought. You read each sentence as a separate idea that has no relation to the previous sentence. You are not able to process a rational line of thought. It makes communication with you most impossible.s of IR it can still emit considerable amounts of energy. Ice will absorb almost all this energy and hence can be melted by the emission of CO2, it would depend upon the watts of energy emitted by the CO2.”
First I put the bands that CO2 emits. The next sentence followed this line of thought. You can’t read properly that things follow a sequence. I used the word “this” to indicate that ice absorbs the two band CO2 emits in. I will just have to realize you have little reading ability and can’t properly process rational sequence of thoughts.
Norman, incoherent and incomprehensible.
Notice in your second paragraph, “When I stated…”, the text in quotations is inaccurate. You never “stated” that.
You’re welcome to try again.
JDHuffman
I have to agree with you on that one. My post was a mess. Not sure what happened. I was pasting a part of another post and it looks like something got deleted and mixed up. But that still does not mean you understand any valid physics.
Norman, read your previous comments. You falsely accused me of problems with “reading comprehension”. Yet it us you that cannot communicate coherently, logically, and maturely. You insulted me, and misrepresented me.
You just got caught again.
The reality is you don’t have a clue. You don’t understand the relevant physics. All you can do is insult, misrepresent, and falsely accuse.
JDHuffman
I will agree with your comment. However just because I made a bobble post does not help your reading comprehension at all. In the case of my post I would agree with you that it was messed up. That does not help all the other posts (that were not messed up) that you could not comprehend.
Norman, you are only “agreeing” because you got caught. You have no interest in learning from your mistakes.
Check your own rambling: “However just because I made a bobble post does not help your reading comprehension at all.”
What the heck does that mean? You’re just desperate.
You can’t communicate properly. You don’t understand the relevant physics. All you can do is insult, misrepresent, and falsely accuse.
But, at least you know how to type.
JDHuffman
Goofy. Whatever you want to believe go ahead. See how many idiots on this blog you are able to convince you know what you are talking about. It looks like a couple here and there. I waste too much time going in endless, mindless, circles when you jump in my posts.
You make this blog most unscientific and ridiculous.
So believe what you want, no one will ever change your mind on anything and I am most grateful your ideas are on no consequence to actual reality. Play on this blog. Your ideas are changing nothing, you are not gaining converts.
Norman offers his usual false accusations, misrepresentations, and insults.
Nothing new.
Ball4 “No you can not. The program does not re-compute the consequences of changes in LWIR on the atm. temperature profile.”
The entire purpose of the experiment is to quantify the Delta Temperature for Delta W/M^2 of LWIR between 13 and 18 microns.
Ball4 “Not at all. I’m pointing out where you are wrong about the basic physics.”
No you are not, you are demonstrating that you don’t understand the concept. What needs to be answered is if you alter the W/M^2 of 13 to 18 micron on water, will it warm it. It is a simple experiment.
Ball4 “And the effect of 13-18 LWIR on the surface includes the temperature profile of the atm. Saturation of lines is only part of the effect, you are missing an important basic physics.”
No, I’m not missing anything. CO2’s only defined mechanism by which to affect climate change is through the GHG effect and 13 to 18 micron LWIR. As you increase CO2 in the atm you alter the backradiation of 13 to 18 micron on the oceans. The question is, can that small change in 13 to 18 micron LWIR warm the oceans. I say no way in hades.
“I say no way in hades.”
You say huh? That doesn’t make it so. Dr. Spencer’s experiment has shown there is a way in hades. You just choose not to accept the results.
Run your experiment on Earth atm., show results that counter the only defined mechanism by which to affect climate change is through the GHG effect and 13 to 18 micron LWIR and therefore the 1LOT is wrong. You will become well known, that will change the basic science. Your reluctance to do so means you already know it is a waste of time.
Ball4 “You will become well known, that will change the basic science. Your reluctance to do so means you already know it is a waste of time.”
If I had access to a University Lab I would have done it yesterday. I don’t. That is why I am posting this idea on this blog hoping that someone that does work at a University and does have access to a lab would run such an experiment.
Once again, the delta W/M^2 of outgoing LWIR is calculated using MODTRAN. Simply record the delta W/M^2 for various delta CO2 levels. Shine various amounts of W/M^2 of 13 to 18 micron LWIR on a sample of water. Does the additional W/M^2 of LWIR applied to the sample of water cause it to cool at a slower rate than the water sample that doesn’t have the extra W/M^2 applied to it. Pretty simple experiment.
“Pretty simple experiment.”
Yes. That experiment has already been performed by Dr. Spencer using natural LWIR. And he didn’t need access to a univ. lab. You could use your backyard to replicate it. And again, MODTRAN doesn’t know the changing T of the atm. profile which affects the LWIR shining into surface water, in addition to and independent of, line saturation.
“Does the additional W/M^2 of LWIR applied to the sample of water cause it to cool at a slower rate than the water sample that doesnt have the extra W/M^2 applied to it.”
Yes that’s what Dr. Spencer’s data logger showed and his calculations using 1LOT similarly demonstrated including all natural 13 to 18 micron LWIR clear sky at night in Alabama in the summertime. When icy cirrus showed up overnight his apparatus immediately detected the added LWIR. A rough but decently working cloud detector.
When the fluffball gets trapped in his own web, he resorts to mentioning “experiments” and real scientists, to help his case.
But, he always ends up short.
Ball4:
I recall another Tony (retired meteorologist) stating that they would be on the watch out for Cirrus cloud on icy nights as the Cirrus would have a tendency to melt ice on roads creating more hazardous conditions.
I wonder how much of the effect in Dr Spencer’s experiment was due to (1) reflection and (2) latent heat due to condensation and furthermore ice crystal formation. Neither of these are GHG “back radiation” effects.
co2…”I keep hearing the Climate Alarmist claim that you cant run experiments in Climate Change”.
Climate change is a goofy term. There is no such thing as a general/universal climate change. Local climates, the only real climates, can change and we already know the reason why. It’s generally about changes in rainfall patterns due to atmospheric circulation issues.
It has been claimed the Arctic climate has changed which is nonsense. There are hot spots in the Arctic that move around month to month. That’s weather related to ocean circulation patterns.
CO2 IS LIFE – they are in denial of every thing which runs counter to their precious theory.
They are never going to change their minds but who cares.
What matters is what the climate does moving forward, that is what is relevant.
CO2 IS LIFE- I dare say no matter how much against the scam (AGW)the climate goes they will still insist their theory is still valid.
It is been proven wrong on so many levels that I can’t keep track any more. Everything this theory has called for has failed to take place and now all the signs are pointing to colder global temperatures ahead not warmer.
David says you can’t have a climate test well we have one in the making right now, which is increasing CO2 warmer global temperatures versus very weak solar colder global temperatures.
Moderated by the weakening geo magnetic field.
CO2 ID LIFE – as far as ocean warming or cooling it ends and starts with the sun. It is not worth the time of day to discuss it any further.
Yet you have managed to find the time of day multiple times a day, every day for at least a decade. Do you understand the concept of empty words?
If that is directed at me yes I do as in what AGW keeps saying- empty words.
I see you again found the time of day to discuss it further.
bob…”Do you understand the concept of empty words?”
No such thing.it’s a philosiphical concept just like climate change and AGW.
Claiming something is “a philosiphical [sic] concept” is philosophising in itself.
bob…”Claiming something is “a philosiphical [sic] concept” is philosophising in itself”.
You are bereft of awareness if you think that. There are times when you have to observe directly, without the philosophy.
I am claiming ’empty words’ are a philosophical concept since a word in the context in which we post is a written word. It cannot be empty or you couldn’t read it.
Same thing with AGW. If it was real we could experience it. Thus far, I have experienced noo climate change or warming that cannot be explained.
With regard to ‘philosiphical’, the i and o are right beside each other on my keyboard.
It is amazing the lengths those who support AGW theory have gone to ,in order to prove their soon to be obsolete theory.
When I see the tremendous amounts of literature based on this scam I say what a waste of time.
Salvatore,
What is disappointing to me is how some, who pretend to the title of scientists, attack those who have a difference of opinion. That is not science, it is politics.
Best wishes and, as always, I hope you are wrong – warmer is better.
Lewis
The model of ideal thermally conductive blackbody at Earth distance has uniform temperature of about 5 C.
If blackbody is not an ideal thermal conductive body, it doesn’t have uniform temperature AND doesn’t have average temperature of about 5 C.
Our Moon is example of blackbody which is not ideal thermal conductive body- it’s roughly close the opposite of ideal thermal conductive body.
With our Moon the surface when sun at zenith is about 120 C. And ideal thermally conductive body would be about 5 C. And at night the Moon is about 100 K and ideal thermally conductive body would be about 5 C [278 K].
If the moon had much faster rotation, it be closer to ideal thermally conductive body. And if Moon had an atmosphere it would be more like ideal thermally conductive body. And if the lunar surface was more conductive of heat it would be more ideal thermally conductive body.
Now instead of being more conductive of heat, the surface of the Moon could transparent to sunlight. So if surface of moon had 1 meter depth of glass or other transparent material, the sunlight passes thru the glass and heats the surface below the glass. And this would be similar to blackbody which ideally conducts heat 1 meter below the surface.
So, if Moon was covered with 1 meter depth of transparent material
it would be more like an ideal thermally conductive body.
And if instead of 1 meter depth of transparent material, it was 2 meter depth, it would be more like ideal thermally conductive body
as compared to 1 meter depth of transparent material.
What difference would be if Moon was covered with 2 meters of transparent glass?
Due to Moon slow’s rotation, it seems the dark surface under the glass would get as hot as lunar surface without 2 meters of glass- so dark surface and the 2 meter glass above, when sun at zenith would be about 120 C.
So without the glass about 5 cm of lunar surface warms to about 120 C and with 200 cm of glass, one has +200 cm of glass warming to 120 C. Or 205 / 5 = 41 or Moon with 2 meters of glass absorbs 41 times more sunlight.
Now, I will assume lunar surface and lunar surface with 2 meter of
glass covering it radiate same amount energy if it’s the same temperature, but if glass covered moon retain higher temperature for longer period of time, it radiate more energy because it’s higher temperature.
But another factor relates to where “on or in or under the glass does it radiate from” if glass was opaque to IR light it’s radiates at surface of glass or if transparent to IR, it’s not confined to radiating from the surface of the glass.
And related to this, one might have a question: Can transparent material ever radiate more energy as compared to ideal blackbody surface. A simple answer would be if transparent material could ever radiate more energy per square meter than an ideal blackbody surface, then such transparent material “becomes” the ideal blackbody surface- because definitionally an ideal blackbody radiates the most amount energy per square meter in a vacuum.
So, generally speaking we will assume the glass does not ever emit as much as ideal blackbody surface and is about the same as lunar surface which emits similar or close to ideal blackbody surface.
Now, it’s not clear to me that lunar surface covered with 2 meters
would warmer [or much warmer] than lunar surface at the time period of sundown. Or with Moon, the temperature is near 0 C or colder, and with 2 meter of glass it could be around 0 C.
Instead the greater difference would when the lunar surface gets the coldest [around 100 K] it’s seems the glass covered lunar surface could be about 50 K warmer as compared to non glass cover lunar surface when it’s coldest during night time.
BTW, the sun bathes the oceans with 1,000 W/M^2 of very high energy 0.4 to 0.7 Visible radiation that penetrates 70 m into the oceans. The back radiation of CO2 accounts for 0.6 W/M^2, and it doesn’t penetrate the ocean, and much is simply reflected. Does anyone honestly believe that small amount of additional radiation of those wavelengths can warm the oceans?
Back-radiation from greenhouse gases amounts to more than 300 W/m^2.
The pseudoscience claims it is about 340 Watts/m^2. Treating the atmosphere as a black body, that correseponds to a temperature of about 5 °C, or 41 °F.
“Treating the atmosphere as a black body”
That would not pass peer review as an informed, critial reviewer would point out the atm. is nowhere near a black body and even transmits radiation thus recommend any editor reject that comment.
Fluffball, I was being lenient. Treating the atmosphere as a black body would provide the most energy back to the surface. If you use actual emissivities, the energy returning, and resulting temperatures, drop.
So, you just stuck your foot in your mouth, again.
“Treating the atmosphere as a black body would provide the most energy back to the surface.”
Yes, so JD now admits his 6c3 and 8e3 cartoons contain bogus science wherein a black body would NOT provide the most energy back to the surface raising its temperature to 262K from 244K depicted in the cartoons redefined with a reflecting body.
JD is trapped once again. Great entertainment. Keep it up JD, JD’s pseudoscience is so entertaining.
Fluffball now sticks his other foot in his mouth.
Nothing new.
ball4…”Treating the atmosphere as a black body
That would not pass peer review as an informed, critial reviewer ….”
JD is not claiming the atmosphere is a blackbody, he is referring to the climate idiots who do.
Let’s face it, Kiehle-Trenberth messed up royally when they made that idiotic claim. There is no way that GHGs, making up 0.3% of the overall atmoshere can back-radiate the same amount of radiation as the bazillions of atoms/molecules on the surface.
bob…Back-radiation from greenhouse gases amounts to more than 300 W/m^2.”
You can have all the back-RADIATION you want, that radiation cannot warm the ocean or the surface if it comes from a cooler source.
Do you think the ice in Antarctica is warming the surrounding ocean?
Because of course, when a photon hits the earth’s surface, the photon and the surface know what the temperature of the source was, and refuse to interact.
“…that radiation cannot warm the ocean or the surface if it comes from a cooler source.”
________________________________________________
It can and it does.
What else should happen with its energy???
Think about this question very seriously. It will break your thinking-blockade.
<i"Do you think the ice in Antarctica is warming the surrounding ocean?"
It is if the ocean’s view of ice radiating at 32F (273.15K) has replaced the ocean’s view of space at 2.7K and its view of the atm. at -60F (222K).
CO2isLife says:
BTW, the sun bathes the oceans with 1,000 W/M^2
_______________________________________
I have some interesting news for you:
The earth is a globe!
So even without atmosphere only about 340 W/m^2 would hit the surface.
With atmospere remain about 160W/m^2 to “bathe” the ocean.
Fritz, when I see such nonsense, I like to say “learn some physics”.
But, in your case, you don’t even know the pseudoscience!
fritz…”So even without atmosphere only about 340 W/m^2 would hit the surface”.
You need to revisit your math.
Sorry, my fault.
Of course its 342 W/m^2.
And of course since its 342w/m2, the greenhouse effect is only about 50 watts/m2. Such an irradiance would be expected to warm the surface to approximately 5.5C. The 33degC greenhouse effect is just a convoluted attempt to make it look larger than it is by estimating what effects the water cycle and ghg have in allowing radiation to reach the surface.
News Flash: A Full Moon adds 10X more W/M^2 to the surface than CO2 does. That is how minuscule CO2’s contribution is. A Full Moon provides far more W/M^2 than CO2 does.
“The Earth receives approximately 6.8mW/m2 of reflected sunlight from the moon (see below for details of how I calculated that).”
Interesting.
The CHANGE in CO2 concentration from 280 to 410 ppm has produced a change in forcing of 2 W/m^2 (without taking into account feedbacks).
Then there is the increase in forcing by 0.5 W/m^2 due to increases in methane concentrations, 0.2 W/m^2 due to increases in nitrous oxide concentrations, and 0.3 W/m^2 due to increases in a combination of other minor greenhouse gases, making a total of 3 W/m^2.
Apparently you believe that 6.8 MILLIwatts per square metre is ten times that value, rather than just over 2% of that value.
Compare this also to the difference in solar forcing between the peak of the 1980s and the Maunder minimum – a difference of 1.5 W/m^2.
And Salvatore just swallowed it without any checking for sensibility because it happens to fit his agenda.
Yet during the Minoan , Roman, and Medieval warm periods CO2 concentrations were lower then today and yet global temperatures were as high or higher then today.
Does not say much for CO2 as the climate knob.
Globally, temperatures were NOT higher than today. That warming was regional.
des, where are you keeping the actual thermometer readings from those periods?
Some people don’t think thermometers were invented back then….
Hey Salvatore, it seems your buddy is challenging your assertion that temperatures in those periods were warmer than today. Apparently there is no way of knowing that. What say you?
According to proxies the Little Ice Age was the coldest or one of the coldest period in thousands of years.
Or there were other periods which are measurably warmer according to numerous ways of measuring temperature.
A problem with saying other periods were warmer, or this present period was warmer is lack of agreement about what is warmer or cooler global temperature.
It is said that our present average global temperature is about 15 C.
Our average global average temperature is about 15 C, which is due to the average ocean surface temperature being about 17 C and our average land air surface temperature being about 10 C.
What the subject of global warming refers to do, is generally about regions outside of the tropics warming and/or amplification of warming or cooling of polar region, mainly because this related to glacial or interglacial periods.
Or there is idea that if polar regions of northern hemisphere cool, then glaciers in region can grow, and growth of glaciers in northern hemisphere is sign of heading towards a glacial period.
If you agree generally with that, then temperature of northern hemisphere are directly related to global warming.
Though with our modern pseudo science, there seems to a concern or a lot attention about the tropics warming, because the attention is upon idea that Earth is going to get “hot” rather any concern about returning to glacial periods.
And this is silly or abysmally stupid.
Though it is true the tropical ocean is the heat engine of the world, but it’s failing to acknowledge that we are in an icebox climate or known as an Ice Age.
Anyhow, if believe warming northern hemisphere is related to global warming [increase in global average temperature] there evidence warmer conditions allowing certain crops to grow in more the northern parts of northern hemisphere.
Sorry – your buddy JD disagrees with you. You should be arguing with him.
Bobdesbond says:
November 18, 2018 at 2:41 PM
Sorry – your buddy JD disagrees with you. You should be arguing with him.
Yes, I am lukewarmer and I do disagree with both JD and Salvatore Del Prete.
But we do agree on obvious things, like greenhouse effect theory is pseudo science and many other things.
–Bobdesbond says:
November 18, 2018 at 2:41 PM
Sorry – your buddy JD disagrees with you. You should be arguing with him.–
I am lukewarmer and I do disagree with both JD and Salvatore and many others*.
But I do agree on obvious things, like greenhouse effect theory is pseudo science- and many other things.
* A problem is the warming effect of CO2 and greenhouse gases has not been measured.
But if greenhouse gases did directly warm the surface, it would be quite easy to exactly measure it.
Or such an idea is easy to disprove and the “debate” would be long over.
Your statement depends on CO2 being the ONLY thing which affects our climate. That is a straw man argument.
–Bobdesbond says:
November 18, 2018 at 8:53 PM
Your statement depends on CO2 being the ONLY thing which affects our climate. That is a straw man argument.–
Do you mean increasing methane levels is going to cause warming?
“When it comes to global warming, carbon dioxide is the 800-pound gorilla: it’s the most abundant of the long-lived greenhouse gases that human activities generate. But ounce for ounce, methane (CH4) traps more heat, and it accounts for about 20% of the greenhouse gases produced by human activities. Strangely, though, global methane levels “flat lined” from 1999 to 2006. ”
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/after-2000-era-plateau-global-methane-levels-hitting-new-highs
Or Ozone “restoration”, or what?
I think water vapor has largest warming effect, but likewise I can’t say how much warming is due to increased water vapor. Also, a significant amount water vapor is produced by human activity.
“The CHANGE in CO2 concentration from 280 to 410 ppm has produced a change in forcing of 2 W/m^2 (without taking into account feedbacks).”
Change the settings on MODTRAN to looking up. What is important is how much LWIR is being sent back to warm the oceans. A cooling stratosphere, the real effect of CO2, doesn’t warm the oceans. When you look at what is being directed back to warm the oceans it is 0.6 W/M^2. Unless you can explain how CO2’s rapid radiation of LWIR into outer space and the resulting cooling of the stratosphere can warm the oceans, your inflated W/M^2 isn’t applicable to the issue of a warming ocean.
How can I debate someone who just makes it all up.
bob…”The CHANGE in CO2 concentration from 280 to 410 ppm has produced a change in forcing of 2 W/m^2″
Don’t know where you learned your physics.
For one, there is no such thing as a forcing in reality. The term forcing comes from a forcing function in a differential equation. If the equation is wrong, or the equation of the forcing function is wrong, the outcome is wrong.
In electronics, if you want to test the differential equation for an amplifier mathematically, you can apply a unit impulse function to its input to observe the effect on the output. That is a forcing function.
CO2 forces nothing. That notion came from climate modelers who have absolutely no idea how CO2 acts in the atmosphere. They have presumed a 9% to 25% warming effect, depending on the humidity.
They had no right to make such a presumption. It is blatantly clear that radiation from a cooler target cannot warm a surface that warmed the target.
That’s basic physics, but the tribal mentality produced by modelers has seriously perverted physics.
Correct! Forcing is a theory. Modtran is about how much additional energy CO2 will absorb through the entire atmosphere. How much if any that results in a net forcing is what the models are trying to guess at. Of course to be in that club you have to accept the religion as to how much results in forcing. All you are allowed to fiddle with is feedbacks and you can do virtually anything you want there as long as it doesn’t result in anything too small.
Ooops, that should have read 1/100 of the irradiation of CO2, I missed the m for milli. Same conclusion however, even 100x the radiation of the Moon wouldn’t cause catastrophic climate change.
BTW, the moon reflects high energy visible light that can in fact warm the oceans. If small changes in W/M^2 can in fact cause CAGW one should be able to demonstrate that the temperatures during a full moon are statistically different from when there is no moon at all. I haven’t seen any studies demonstrating that but it might be worth considering for a “settled science.”
If you read the entire article there is 6.8 reflected and 89 thermal mW/M^2, so a full moon provides 1/10 the W/M^2 of CO2. If CO2 can cause CAGW, you would be able to demonstrate a statistical difference between the temperatures under a full moon and under no moon at all. Anyone up for the challenge to prove that such small numbers actually cause measurable changes?
Ummm…. not next to meaningless, just plain meaningless. Error bars so wide they encompass every recent estimate of warming with plenty of error left over. The results truly are meaningless, and utterly, completely different from the original claims in the paper.
i am doubtful about a most recently published paper in Nature:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0673-2
I have only read the abstract (no privilege to read whole paper) and has these queries:
* how could the authors re-simulate Katrina and other hurricanes in a different climate? tracks/frequencies are likely to be different in a warmed climate as postulated in some previous studies.
* if it is just a few-day simulation of the storms so that their tracks are essentially the same in a different climate, what’s new at all about the result that “higher SST gives more intense storms”?
“Theres something big lurking beneath Greenlands ice. Using airborne ice-penetrating radar, scientists have discovered a 31-kilometer-wide crater larger than the city of Paris buried under as much as 930 meters of ice in northwest Greenland.
The meteorite that slammed into Earth and formed the pit would have been about 1.5 kilometers across, researchers say. Thats large enough to have caused significant environmental damage across the Northern Hemisphere, a team led by glaciologist Kurt Kjr of the University of Copenhagen reports November 14 in Science Advances.
Although the crater has not been dated, data from glacial debris as well as ice-flow simulations suggest that the impact may have happened during the Pleistocene Epoch, between 2.6 million and 11,700 years ago. The discovery could breathe new life into a controversial hypothesis that suggests that an impact about 13,000 years ago triggered a mysterious 1,000-year cold snap known as the Younger Dryas”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/16/a-massive-crater-hides-beneath-greenlands-ice/
Hmm, a 1.5 km diameter iron asteroid. And hitting an ice sheet.
It seems that could make most of ice “fall” into the ocean.
So in a way like the Al Gore idea of entire ice sheet falling into the ocean- it seems to me, you need that level force to do it.
So it hasn’t been dated, and it MAY have struck during the Pleistocene. In other words, they have no idea when it struck.
And no, the ice would not have fallen into the ocean. It would have been instantly vapourised.
There is certainly a lot unknown about this impactor, and it’s certain we will find out a lot more about it.
It seems possible this could be the largest impactor to have occurred in recent time. And it’s even possible it has value in terms of mineral resources, in terms of Platinum Metal Group:
“A relatively new idea in the marketplace is the concept of asteroid mining. It is well known by scientists that asteroids hold a treasure trove of Precious Metals and other resources such as water. Many researchers believe Nickel-Iron asteroids have abundant deposits of Platinum Group Metals, which include Palladium, Rhodium and of course Platinum. The theory holds that if technology can be developed to harvest these natural resources, the extractions can be sold on Earth to help finance further space exploration and habitat development.”
https://www.apmex.com/education/science/platinum-from-asteroids-the-next-rush
So, this could the biggest explosive caused by impactor is recent times- in last say 100,000 years, and maybe biggest explosion caused any event [including volcanic]. Though also maybe only top 10 or 100 in last 100,000 years in terms of all kinds of events. Of course if older than 100,000 years, there is more competition, but if say 20,000 years or less, there would less competition.
Though there is uncertainly about how powerful this event was, nor is there absolute certainly it even occurred, but it seems like a pretty good bet, it did.
I was saying when dealing with such a possible powerful force, things like a significant amount glacial ice of Greenland falling into ocean, then it becomes a possibility.
Here another story about it:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/massive-crater-under-greenland-s-ice-points-climate-altering-impact-time-humans
And note caption of picture:
A 1.5-kilometer asteroid, intact or in pieces, may have smashed into an ice sheet just 13,000 years ago. NASA SCIENTIFIC VISUALIZATION STUDIO
There could other impactors involved- one is which is found could indicate a higher possibility there more events were also occurring at this same time.
Lots of unknowns and in time we should get a fuller picture.
Known impact craters on Earth, wiki:
“Large craters (10 ka to 1 Ma)
From between 10 thousand years to 1 million years ago, and with a diameter of 1 km or more. The largest in the last one million years is the 14-km Zhamanshin crater in Kazakhstan and has been described as being capable of producing a nuclear-like winter.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impact_craters_on_Earth
So 14-km Zhamanshin crater is about 1/2 size of 31 km diameter crater hitting Greenland.
“Larger craters (1 Ma to 10 Ma)
From between 1 and 10 million years ago, and with a diameter of 5 km or more. If uncertainties regarding its age are resolved, then the largest in the last 10 million years would be the 52-km Karakul crater which is listed in EID with an age of less than 5 Ma, or the Pliocene.”
Karakul is probably bigger impacter and certainly has a larger crater.
Largest craters (10 Ma or more)
“Craters with a diameter of 20 km or more are all older than 10 Ma, with the exception of Karakul (52 km) and the newly-discovered Hiawatha crater (31 km, but not yet in the EID) whose ages are uncertain.”
So, wiki mentions the Hiawatha crater, but have not included it in their lists, yet.
The grapes sure are sour this week.
Now follow the temperature in Europe.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-338.96,51.72,780
Is your comprehension always this bad?
Winter is developing in North America.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00974/cclza5anm9js.png
Ren, I think there are levels of magnetic field weakness(solar/geo) out there which will result in thresholds being breached which will cause major rather then minor climatic changes.
The signs I am looking for are an increase in geological activity, a more meridional atmospheric circulation and or lowering 500mb heights, an increase in global snow/cloud coverage, lower overall oceanic sea surface temperatures and global temperatures.
Much of this is just getting started in response to solar going from an active mode to an inactive mode in year 2005. The low average solar parameters have only been in place for a year or so and all of this is now starting to have climatic impacts. All moderated by a weakening geo magnetic field.
It is going to be very interesting and telling to see how this evolves.
Polar vortex is set according to the geomagnetic field in the north.
http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2014/06/june_2014_magnetic_field/14582208-1-eng-GB/June_2014_magnetic_field_node_full_image_2.jpg
Look below.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00974/fnzxoagdtmx3.png
Ren can you elaborate on this some? That is the relationship of the polar vortex to the geo magnetic field.
The observed magnetic field is highly asymmetrical.
Lines of inclination are highly elliptical, with the North Magnetic Pole situated near one end of the ellipse.
The strength of the magnetic field is no longer a maximum at the North Magnetic Pole. In fact, there are now two maxima, one over central Canada, the other over Siberia.
Magnetic meridians do not converge radially on the North Magnetic Pole.
http://www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/images/field/fnor.gif
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00974/r00c1spjptf2.png
The polar vortex in the lower stratosphere takes exactly the pattern of the magnetic field in the north. This always happens in long periods of very low solar activity.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00974/6f1me1xims8i.png
thanks Ren
PREDICTIONS FOR SOLAR CYCLE 25. INTERESTING OF COURSE I DISAGREE ON WHAT IS CONSIDERED GOOD NOEWS AND BAD NEWS.
So what can we bank on?
Statistically speaking, the current Cycle 24 is scheduled to draw to a close about 11 years after the previous sunspot minimum in January 2008, which means sometime in 2019. We entered the Cycle 24 sunspot minimum period in 2016 because in February and June, we already had two spot-free days. As the number of spot-free days continues to increase in 2017-2018, we will start seeing the new sunspots of Cycle 25 appear sometime in late-2019. Sunspot maximum is likely to occur in 2024, with most forecasts predicting about half as many sunspots as in Cycle 24.
The bad news(I CHANGE IT TO GOOD NEWS) is that some studies show sunspot magnetic field strengths have been declining since 2000 and are already close to the minimum needed to sustain sunspots on the solar surface. This is also supported by independent work in 2015 published in the journal Nature. By Cycle 25 or 26, magnetic fields may be too weak to punch through the solar surface and form recognizable sunspots at all, spelling the end of the sunspot cycle phenomenon, and the start of another Maunder Minimum cooling period perhaps lasting until 2100.
But the good news(I CHANGE THIS TO BAD NEWS) seems to be that none of the current forecasts suggest Cycle 25 will be entirely absent. A few forecasts even hold out some hope that a sunspot maximum equal to or greater than Cycle 24 is possible.
President Trump makes references to scientific studies when predicting the climate doom and gloom, and slip up in studies like this point out climate change is not real. It is a fallacy of overthinking scientists who may be drunk or on pot, I don’t know. Errors like this point out we need to reset climate change studies and start over again. As all of you have argued, the predictions have varied. How much do we really know? Argo is great, but not so multidimensional. Trump isn’t politicizing it, leave him out of this.
doc Thor…”Errors like this point out we need to reset climate change studies and start over again”.
We need to do that with science in general, especially physics. Since the replacement of Newtonian physics by quantum theory early in the 20th century, science has lost direction. There are far too much science being done based on opinion and consensus.
It seems to have reached the ridiculous. I read last night that measures like kilograms, metres, and even the second are being redefined by elitists based on what they THINK the measures should be, based on relativity theory.
This nonsense has to be opposed and stopped. There are serious flaws in GRT with regard to interpretations of what it means. Even Einstein got so desperate that he abandoned his premise that physics must represent observable reality. He based GRT on a thought experiment with no proof whatsoever that time dilates and measures change length due to their velocity.
If we allow these idiots to change physical measures based on thought experiments and theory, science is doomed. Some have already claimed gravity is not a force, that it is a perturbation in space-time.
I think those lunatics need to be removed from mainstream science.
The tribal mentality must not pervert science.
” It is a fallacy of overthinking scientists who may be drunk or on pot, I don’t know. ”
It not a mystery or complicated, you don’t have be Einstein to figure it out
https://goo.gl/1N7UhF
My Newest Post:
A Nobel Prize in Science Winning Climate Science Experiment; An Open Challenge
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/11/17/a-nobel-prize-in-science-winning-climate-science-experiment/
Problem is “climate scientists” don’t think backradiation is warming any earth surface [land or ocean surface]
Though there are posters, here, which imagine this is the case.
The problem is climate so called scientist think a trace gas with a trace increase will some how govern the climatic system.
Next joke.
Yes they do tend to go with idea of CO2 being a control knob.
This is from idea that something was causing glacial and interglacial periods.
But people should realize that CO2 is not control knob which caused glacial and interglacial periods.
What is the control knob of glacial and interglacial period is mostly related to the Milankovitch cycles.
What it WAS the main control knob which brought temperatures down from the peak 55 million years ago to the onset of the current ice age 2.5 million years ago. In this case, the knob was controlled by geological processes.
The other control knob being ocean circulation patterns.
“BUT” it was …
salvatore…”The problem is climate so called scientist think a trace gas with a trace increase will some how govern the climatic system”.
None of them explain why the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere prior to the Industrial Era did not cause catastrophic warming. In fact, that amount of CO2 could not prevent the planet cooling 1 to 2C during the Little Ice Age.
That had to be about the Sun.
Dyson hates the nexus of science and ideology. Every time I see someone write ‘CAGW’, I know that an ideologue has spoken.
Your challenge is ill-posed, CO2. There is a range associated with the response of the biosphere to increased CO2, and severity (not catastrophe) is a part of that range. Your challenge is a straw man.
barry…”Every time I see someone write CAGW, I know that an ideologue has spoken”.
The message of the IPCC and alarmists is catastrophic global warming, or CAGW. They just don’t say that.
The ultimate with that propaganda was Hanson’s tipping point, beyond which the Earth would move toward the atmosphere currently on Venus.
That was the beginning of the cult science of climate change, adopted by the tribe.
The message of the IPCC and alarmists is catastrophic global warming, or CAGW. They just dont say that.
The IPCC gives a range. No, they do not rail about “catastrophic” global warming. That is activists’ language. And anyone using it (ie; CAGW) to try and neutrally discuss the science is likewise being propagandistic.
If you use politically charged language, I’ll call you on it. If you can’t separate the science and the politics, you can’t think clearly about the science.
Barry I agree with you. Nothing whatsoever to worry about climate. Science says that.
Until you accurately paraphrase what I’ve written instead of making up something else entirely, you don’t get to say what you agree with me on.
So you said: “No, they do not rail about catastrophic global warming. That is activists language. And anyone using it (ie; CAGW) to try and neutrally discuss the science is likewise being propagandistic.”
I would agree that no real climate scientist would use the word catastrophe as a measure of anthropogenic global warming. However, CAGW is a word commonly used, but not to refer to AGW but instead to refer to a class of “activists” whether they be propagandizing scientists or non-scientists.
Can we agree that CO2 contributes to a temperate planet compared to one with no gases that absorb IR radiation? What one has to do to claim CO2 causes a “range” in global warming is to prove that an incremental change in CO2 from now on can cause ANY more warming. It is entirely possible that all other effects on global temperatures completely overwhelm any further effect from CO2.
So in that context, CO2isLife’s challenge is not a straw-man.
I do agree with your point about CAGW, however. He would be well-advised to let it just be AGW.
BTW, Dyson agrees that increase of atmospheric CO2 should cause the surface to warm, and has described anthro CO2 as the main cause of warming we have observed.
barry…”Dyson agrees that increase of atmospheric CO2 should cause the surface to warm, and has described anthro CO2 as the main cause of warming we have observed”.
Can’t be right all of the time. Even Fred Singer, a skeptic, thinks that. He pans the notion that the 2nd law prohibits a transfer of heat from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface that warmed it.
As much as I admire Fred as a scientist, it’s obvious that thermodynamics is not his forte.
If you get to cherry pick what to believe from your “experts” then you are expressing your opinion, not theirs.
“Bobdesbond says:
November 18, 2018 at 8:50 PM
If you get to cherry pick what to believe from your “experts” then you are expressing your opinion, not theirs.”
Gordon himself has said increasing CO2 levels should or could cause some warming, meaning an increase in global temperature.
An increase in global temperature is not the same as warming the surface, rather it means an increase the average temperature of surface air temperature.
So warming includes increasing the night time air temperature. And there has been a measured increase in night time air temperature.
The average increase of air temperature has been small particularly in regards to accuracy of the measurement, but roughly the average increase in global air temperature has been about 1 C over the last hundred years. But probably more accurate to say it’s warmed more than .5 C over a period of about hundred years.
And it seems to me, it’s possible it [global surface air temperature] could warm more than .5 C in next hundred years- and that would be a lot of warming, and perhaps a significant part of this warming could be due to increasing CO2 levels.
BUT there other factors which could instead cause most of this warming.
The most significant and acknowledged by “all”, lies in idea of “natural variability” or everyone agrees that over time, the average temperature of earth surface [or surface air temperature] has been changing. Basically, “natural variability” means changes not caused by humans and/or changes not caused by all life on Earth- or other factors.
But you also have changes caused by all life [including humans] and changes primarily caused by humans [including effects of humans upon other living processes which in turn have some effect].
As I have said many times, I believe most of warming over last 100 years is due to recovery from the Little ice Age.
And we have yet to measure the warming effect caused by rising CO2 level, ie, is it less than .1 C, more than .1 C, or more than .2 C and also if CO2 level were to remain the same, will it warm further due to present elevated CO2 levels, and will such warming occur within a decade, within a few decades, or within centuries.
And it’s my opinion that within a century and with any reasonable expectation of rise in CO2, the warming effect in this future will be about 0 to .5 C. And if I include all possible factors, less than 1 C.
More than decade ago, I thought it might be as much as 2 to 3 C, and at that time, I didn’t think such warming would have been much of problem. And believe global temperatures have been recently [within a million years] 2 to 3 C warmer then they are now [perhaps several times with this time period]. And over a longer time period, much warmer than this.
But what possibility of cooling. And this is a far more important issue, a cooling of .2 C could be quite bad, I mean in terms of average global temperature, not due measured dips in temperatures.
Or rather being a disaster, the warming of .5 C or more over the last hundred years has been beneficial, and losing a portion of this benefit or losing all of it, would be bad news.
Again, anyone who is vaguely reasonable would agree.
Sort of like is the US were to magically disappear from the world, could be a problem, even though many will claim the US is major source of evil in the World [such as what the Iranian government claims daily]. Though one could blame the US due to it’s action of disappearing and creating a vacuum- any country “disappearing” creates a vacuum and any vacuum causes problem. So you blame it’s existance, and creating the vacuum [still say US is Evil and twice as Evil for disappearing and causing mass confusion].
Likewise cooling would create a vacuum or unexpected consequences, but in addition to that, a loss of warming that has occurred over last century will be a net loss.
I don’t think much cooling is likely, though returning to average temperature of latter half of 20th century is possible though one might call this a pause [a huge pause, global warming “disappearing”, but really nothing burger in term actual global average temperature].
There simply has not been a rapid rise in global temperature, and falling off a cliff in terms global temperature is improbable.
But more importantly there has not been dramatic shift in global weather or climate change [though the Dustbowl could be counted as significant]. In terms of next 10 year, I don’t expect any cooling effect which equals the dustbowl in terms of broad weather effect which occurs over prolonged period of time. But a major part of dustbowl was humans doing things wrongs in terms “land management”, humans screwing up plus weather/climate could result
in problems. And major screw up could be due to the expectation related to the global warming religion.
Freeman Dyson is hailed by skeptics as being a ‘real scientist’ with marvelous credentials.
When it is shown he agrees that anthro CO2 increase has been the main driver of recent warming, he suddenly is just an ordinary, fallible scientist.
Everybody is fallible Barry. One maybe a scientist but that doesn’t come even close to being correct about science topics even 50% of the time. Just that some of us are correct a little less of the time.
So tell me, Bill. Why do skeptics often quote Freeman Dyson on climate science?
I don’t know Freeman Dyson well but my impression of him is as a visionary in technical matters.
One of the most pernicious aspects of “activism” is “McCarthyism”. Freeman Dyson and most scientists allow the possibility of warming resulting from CO2. Such should be the case when the science is so opaque that scientists are not able to consistently able to lay out a full explanation for climate controls.
“barry says:
November 19, 2018 at 2:41 PM
Freeman Dyson is hailed by skeptics as being a ‘real scientist’ with marvelous credentials.”
Obviously Dyson is “real scientist” or an actual scientist rather than say “bill Nye the science guy” or James Hansen the ex-NASA director, or Carl Sagan. Or ex-head of IPCC, the wacky sex abusive railroad engineer. And Mann the hockey stick man and basically all the gang of thugs of Climategate. And needless to say, AL Gore- of the sideshow fame and Vice President who didn’t do anything regarding global warming [a politican unable to convince Bill Clinton].
“When it is shown he agrees that anthro CO2 increase has been the main driver of recent warming, he suddenly is just an ordinary, fallible scientist.”
He didn’t prove what role CO2 played in terms of the then recent warming, rather he could not disprove the effect of CO2, nor has any scientist disproved or proved it’s effects. It is a very small effect and there is lots of noise and realistically will require more time [and maybe greater scientific understanding- but mostly time] before it’s possible]. But he noted the obvious, that it was not a threat and most significantly there more important issues.
I would like to know where he “has described anthro CO2 as the main cause of warming we have observed.”
https://www.edge.org/conversation/heretical-thoughts-about-science-and-society
“One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas.”
Thank you, Svante.
That was written in 2007? Was that his final word on the subject?
Looks like it here:
https://tinyurl.com/yabeex82
Dyson is 94 years old so he could still come up with more.
barry comments on the same link below.
He’s a great scientist of course.
If the great Freeman Dyson cannot talk sense to a global warming alarmist, I don’t know of anybody who can. That is why I consider the climate alarmists gang to be part of a cult, or tribe as Dyson explains it. I also like to call them “Global Warming Worshippers.”
I agree with RM
The warmists always ignore inconvenient facts.
They have faith only in their eclectic dogma.
If reality contradicts the ‘model’ then reality must be wrong.
Anyone with a training in hard science or engineering can spot this pseudo science for what it is—– a religious cult.
Bryan…”If reality contradicts the model then reality must be wrong”.
John Christy of UAH took satellite data to a modeler to show him how his model projections were contradicted by the sat data. The modeler told John that he did not care, that his model was right.
Modelers are an arrogant lot. They program a model with contrived equations then claim the model is right and reality wrong.
Are you guys even clear on what Freeman Dyson says about AGW? Are you aware that he agrees more CO2 = more surface warming?
Dyson has publicly stated that the benefits of CO2 far outweighs any harm it may do.
barry…”Are you guys even clear on what Freeman Dyson says about AGW? Are you aware that he agrees more CO2 = more surface warming?”
Both Arrhenius and Callander agreed that any warming would be beneficial to humanity.
barry…not quite the way Freeman presented himself, but good cherry pick.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/11/freeman_dyson_interview/
“An Obama supporter who describes himself as “100 per cent Democrat,” Dyson says he is disappointed that the President “chose the wrong side.” Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere does more good than harm, he argues, and humanity doesn’t face an existential crisis. Climate change, he tells us, “is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?”
Also…
” Are climate models getting better? You wrote how they have the most awful fudges, and they only really impress people who don’t know about them”.
I would say the opposite. What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what’s observed and what’s predicted have become much stronger. It’s clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn’t so clear 10 years ago. I can’t say if they’ll always be wrong, but the observations are improving and so the models are becoming more verifiable.
Freeman Dyson:
“One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas.”
https://www.edge.org/conversation/heretical-thoughts-about-science-and-society
Dyson doesn’t think much of the models. But he does agree about the warming properties of increased atmospheric CO2.
He’s not an expert in climate, or climate models. But, hey, he’s Freeman Dyson, and for some reason that makes his opinion matter. Steven Hawking has a similar expertise on climate science, and he said we should be very worried.
Really, we should be listening to the experts, not famous scientists in different fields.
I can agree with that too. Keeping in mind that the word “warming” is not a scientific word.
Salvatore
I doubt a solar Grand Minimum would bring on the extreme cooling you expect.
The reduction in insolation would be 1W, equivalent to a cooling effect of 0.3C.
At the current rate of warming that would be a temporary delay of about 15 years.
It has next to nothing to do with solar insolation.
My forecast for colder due to low solar has much more to do with galactic cosmic rays and there effects on geological activity and global cloud coverage.
It also has much to do with decreasing EUV light and it’s effects upon the atmospheric circulation(greater snow coverage) and decreasing UV light and it’s effect upon sea surface temperatures.
The change in solar irradiance itself is just an additive to the cooler temperatures not even close to being the main cause.
AP index solar wind speed , and geo magnetic field will be big players in the moderation of galactic cosmic rays, and hence it’s effects.
To sum it up low solar equates to decreasing overall oceanic sea surface temperatures and a slightly higher albedo moderated by a weakening geo magnetic field the result colder global temperatures.
This trend has already started.
Can you put numbers on this.
You mention galactic cosmic rays. The Svenmark effect has been investigated at CERN and is negligable.
Cloud cover has also been investigated and has only a small feedback effect.
I have found no evidence for any evidence or mechanism linking the geomagnetic field with temperature.
EUV is only a small proportion of total insolation and warms the high stratosphere and thermosphere. Again, not a significant modifier of surface temperature.
Say it with numbers. How big are the changes you expect?
What effects do you expect to see on temperature and how were they calculated.
Pretend that you are presenting your hypothesis in a seminar, with your supporting evidence.
I can only say the global temperature trend will be down due to very weak solar/geo magnetic fields. There are threshold levels of weakness as far as duration and degree of magnitude change which I do not know what they are which would make the climatic impact large rather then small.
I said the geo magnetic field’s role is a modifier of given solar activity. When they are in sync the compliment each other.
The galactic cosmic ray issue is far from being solved and I can find many papers that support the theory. I will send one.
EUV light modifies the atmospheric circulation. UV light is a modifier of the ocean temperatures.
I am going to leave it at that. If you want more info. look at my web-site climatebusters.org
https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2016/08/30/cosmic-rays-vs-clouds/
Entropic man I have given my reasons many times over.
As far as I am concerned if the global temperatures continue down from here I will be correct and AGW theory will be wrong. It is that simple.
Your global SST is sitting pretty much right on the trend value, So it has not “continued down”.
He said ‘if’.
Reading correctly requires the desire to do so.
Thank you for the Forbush Decrease paper. This is just the sort of information I was looking for.
It lets me estimate the strength of the effect.
The paper shows that a 3600 to 2800 units decrease in cosmic radiation produces a 2% decrease in cloud cover.
Energy budget measurements estimate that global cloud cover reflects the equivalent of 77W/M^2 of shortwave radiation, emit 25W of longwave radiation upwards and return 72W downwards. Net outward flow due to clouds is 77+25-72= 28W/M^2.
A decrease of 2% in cloud cover due to a Forbush Decrease would reduce that outward radiation by 28*2/100=O.56W.
The generally accepted figure is that a change of 3.7W in insolation would produce a change of 1C in average temperature. 0.56W would produce a change of 0.56/3.7=0.15C.
Figure 3 here
http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate
shows a similar change of 2% in cloud cover from peak to trough of the solar cycle.
You can infer that you would see a similar change in cloud temperature between the top and bottom of a solar cycle, or due to a Grand Minimum. ie 0.15C.
The problem is that a change of this size is not enough to trigger significant cooling.
LG
I’m afraid it is you that has reading issues. Temperatures can’t “continue down” if they are not down in the first place. Do you really believe an “if” changes that?
bob…”Temperatures cant continue down if they are not down in the first place. Do you really believe an if changes that?”
Compared to the first part of the UAH record, pre 1998, they are up.
According to Murry Salby, who is an atmospheric physicist, and who has written books on the atmosphere, there were flat trends pre 1998 and post 1998. Then there was a step jump between the two following the 1998 EN.
I have mentioned that obvious jump several times but it fell on deaf ears. It stands out like a sore thumb on the UAH graph posted by Roy around 2001.
A similar jump occurred in 1977, called the Great Pacific Climate Shift. It was later identified as the PDO.
It seems to me the planet owes around 0.4C in warming and one might expect it to be repaid with a similar cooling at some point.
GR
Irrelevant to my comment and the one I was responding to.
bob…”Irrelevant to my comment and the one I was responding to”.
Typical reply from bob when he has no intelligent reply to offer.
BTW…are you aware you’re name is a palindrome, same backwards as forward? The same would be true if your name was boob, but more fitting.
You have the hide to talk of intelligent replies after that one.
Try to hide your aibohphobia, Dr Awkward. Live not on evil.
The strongest ionization of the GCR occurs in the lower stratosphere and in high latitudes. It grows particularly strongly during the solar minimum.
Carbon-14 is produced in the upper layers of the troposphere and the stratosphere by thermal neutrons absorbed by nitrogen atoms. When cosmic rays enter the atmosphere, they undergo various transformations, including the production of neutrons.
The highest rate of carbon-14 production takes place at altitudes of 9 to 15 km (30,000 to 49,000 ft) and at high geomagnetic latitudes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/EGU2017-7224.pdf
solar activity and dark ages
Your link gives only an abstract. Is the full paper available?
Funny how on the website for EGU 2017, there are hundreds of presentations, almost all showing both the abstract and the full presentation. Yet this one shows only the abstract. Looks like they pulled the paper.
I have to look so far that is all I have.
When the Scientific Consensus Is Corrected by a Skeptic
…
Where did Lewis debunk the doomsayers? No, not in the esteemed pages of Nature but in a blog post at a website called Climate Etc., a small, dissenting dot in the vast universe of online science discussion. Lewis wrote: The findings of thepaper were peer-reviewed and published in the worlds premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media. He went on: Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results. Just a few hours of analysis and calculations, based only on published information, was sufficient to uncover apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations.
…
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/culture-civilization/science/when-the-scientific-consensus-is-corrected-by-a-skeptic/
Linked from:
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
Well, I would not call Climate Etc a dot. On the internet probably bigger than any “non skeptic site”.
Why are you repeating the story from the top post? Have you forgotten which thread you are in?
No.
It related to top post, and therefore not off topic.
More than 250000 people protest green policy in France. Policy like publication and peer review is not holding water in the real world.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46233560
Are you spinning this, Aaron? What, precisely, is the whole movement protesting?
Aaron is simply showing that not only the working class of America, but the working class of the world is now revolting against this scheme by the elitist snobs, the chardonnay crowd to turn them into serfs!
rob…”Aaron is simply showing that not only the working class of America but the working class of the world is now revolting against this scheme by the elitist snobs…”
I just want to be clear that Canada is in America, since America is a continent, not a country.
barry…”What, precisely, is the whole movement protesting?”.
If you had bothered to read the article the cause of their protest is apparent.
“World oil prices did rise before falling back again but the Macron government raised its hydrocarbon tax this year by 7.6 cents per litre on diesel and 3.9 cents on petrol, as part of a campaign for cleaner cars and fuel”.
The French are paying the equivalent of $1.71/litre, presumably in US dollars. That’s $2.24 Canadian and the most we have paid is $1.50/litre. I’d be p***ed off too.
Here in BC, Canada, we are paying 26 cents/litre on taxes related to Green issues. Motorists are being penalized for driving vehicles. Without those Green garbage taxes, we’d be paying less than $1.25/litre.
I object strenuously to you Green idiots creating this propaganda, leading to carbon-related taxes, based on seriously bad science. Everyone knows governments will jump on this as a cash cow, not giving a hoot as to whether the science is legit. They don’t care.
Cold front from the north-east threatens northern California.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00974/zmtbq42hdioe.png
The current pattern of the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere is not favorable for California. The vortex will now be divided into two centers compatible with the magnetic field centers in the north.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-95.40,86.86,296
http://www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/mag_fld/arctics-en.php
Very low solar activity.
http://www.n3kl.org/sun/images/noaa_satenv.gif?
When the solar wind is strong, the polar vortex pattern has a more round shape because the wind speed increases in the vortex.
The pattern of the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere promotes stratospheric intrusions in the US.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00974/3544gbhhd9wj.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/
Barry:
There are no lessons for physicists in Eli’s plates – none that they don’t already know. If analysis of a system proposed is not allowed then state it. In that way your set of analogies will be able to show that black is white and white is black without scrutiny.
Your vacuum cleaner analogy is equally pointless; vacs come with instructions.
The earth is considered a closed system. Eli’s plates are an open system. So we already have a starting problem with the analogy as it is meant to simulate how GHG work in the atmosphere. G&T say in part:
that even today the “atmospheric greenhouse effect” does not appear
– in any fundamental work on thermodynamics
– in any fundamental work on physical kinetics
– in any fundamental work on radiation theory
– that the definitions given in the literature beyond straight physics are very different and, partly, contradict each other.
More and more, the main tactic of CO2-greenhouse gas defenders seems to be to hide behind a mountain of pseudo-explanations that are unrelated to an academic education or even to physics training.
The points discussed here were to answer whether the supposed atmospheric effect in question has a physical basis. It does not.
In summary, no atmospheric greenhouse effect, nor in particular a CO2-greenhouse effect, is permissible in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics.
In back tracking through the posts trying to find the comment to which I had I referred (which I did not find as it was earlier than this month) I came across your diving tank pressure analogy issue. No-one says that pressurizing a tank to a high uniform P and then at equilibrium will be any hotter than its surroundings. Again it is a totally inappropriate analogy and I suggest you read the instructions to understand it. I don’t have a link but this will explain it.
On The Barometric Formulas And Their Derivation From
Hydrodynamics and Thermodynamics
Version 2.0 (March 9, 2010) (G&T)
This is based on the Ideal Gas Laws so that it cannot then be used for lapse rate changes in the Tropopause and Stratosphere where other processes dominate. That is why D** C* confined himself to the Troposphere.
In the Stratosphere a mix of chemical reactions take place, abs*orp*tion of UV formation of Ozone and release of heat as well as stratification. One interesting conjecture for the Tropopause is the temporary formation of multimers with changes including latent heat (Rowan Connolly).
tony…”G&T say in part:”
In their rebuttal to Eli (Halpern et al), G&T schooled the lot of them on the meaning of the 2nd law. They told Eli et al that the 2nd law applies to heat (not EM). The rocket scientists associated with Eli thought you can sum EM and satisfy the 2nd law. G&T explained that you must sum heat, not EM.
You see, in their rebuttal to G&T, Eli etal insisted that if two bodies of different temps were radiating at each other, and only a one way heat transfer was allowed, one plate would not be radiating.
That’s how stupid climate alarmists can be, they have not a clue as to the difference between heat and EM, and that both have very different properties, preventing the energies being summed. EM and heat don’t even have the same units. Heat is measured in calories and EM in eV.
The nonsense Eli is promoting about blue plates and green plates is based on the same nonsense. Even though Eli has a degree in physics, he believes heat can be transferred from a colder green plate to a warmer blue plate that warmed it.
That not only contradicts the 2nd law, it describes perpetual motion. If the blue plate radiated energy that warms the green plate, and that energy can be back-radiated to raise the temperature of the BP, you have perpetual motion.
Barry. What do you mean spinning? They are protesting increases to fuel and automobile taxes according to the article. Point is on paper cuts are easy, but in reality it is very difficult because as humans we rely on fossil fuels for our lifestyle. Society coevolved with energy so to speak and there are no easy alternatives.
Barry. What do you mean spinning?
You said:
“More than 250000 people protest green policy in France.”
When I asked you to be specific you said:
“They are protesting increases to fuel and automobile taxes”
You don’t see how you spun the truth here?
What if the majority of protesters protesting fuel hikes also want CO2 emissions reduced?
You have no data to determine whether that is the truth or not.
That’s why your first comment was spin.
Barry, that was weak. The working class is concerned about their standard of living, not some theory about CO2 being the thermostat control knob of the atmosphere!
barry…”What if the majority of protesters protesting fuel hikes also want CO2 emissions reduced?”
People protesting excessive fuel costs would not give a hoot about the propaganda that passes for anthropogenic warming theory.
Did you guys mean to comment on my comment? Because you didn’t.
FYI, the majority of French people think that AGW is a serious concern.
Most French do not want it dealt with by raising the price of fuel without offsets to cover it for low income drivers.
These are the statistics. Beyond that, what the French “working class” think, or what the people protesting think is data neither you nor I have.
So either you guys are experts on the opinions of the French working class/these particular protesters – or you are as patronizing as the chardonnay sipping elites that stereotype the lower economic classes.
Aaron has no idea, either, which is why his first take was spin. His second take was in line with the article he cited and French opinion polls.
LOL! opinion polls aren’t science. What is meant by “serious”? Its unquantified. I think opinion polls have “serious” concerns about President Trump tweets. But you see few polls on what Trump is doing. Guess they don’t see that as serious.
Another reply that has zero to do with my comment.
How do people’s brains work that they cannot get the point?
The meaning of your words are irrelevant? I can believe that too.
“The earth is considered a closed system. ”
No.
This is where your argument fails.
The Earth is an open system.
Shortwave radiation comes in from the Sun.
Some is reflected, some is absorbed and moves around the system.
It then reradiates to space as longwave radiation.
Unless perturbed, the temperature of the Earth system settles at a value which balances incoming and outgoing energy.
EM
I suggest you go look up the definition of a closed system as obviously you are not going to believe me.
The only caveat is the minuscule amount of matter which can enter or leave that is why I said “considered.”
You are using the classical mechanics definition of a close
The Earth is often considered a closed system for matter, because the amounts entering and leaving are quite negligible.
But you have missed the point by a country mile, tony, because the Earth is NOT considered a closed system WRT to radiation.
Which should be gob-smackingly obvious. All the models, all the descriptions, all the energy budgets……
include the sun.
Barry:
Really? I think you are confused.
Closed systems Closed systems exchange energy but not matter with an outside system. Though they are typically portions of larger systems, they are not in complete contact. The Earth is essentially a closed system; it obtains lots of energy from the Sun but the exchange of matter with the outside is almost zero.
https://www.bluffton.edu/homepages/facstaff/bergerd/NSC_111/thermo2.html
You are more than capable of looking up closed system.
Closed system: The system of fixed mass across the boundary of which no mass transfer can take place is called as closed system. However, across the closed system the energy transfer may take place. An example is fluid being compressed by the piston in cylinder.
https://www.brighthub*engineering.com/thermodynamics/3607-types-of-thermodynamic-systems-and-important-terms-part-one/
This is a painful exercise when it rejects comments…
That last link has an * inserted before engineering… link works if it is removed
You are more than capable of looking up closed system.
Closed system: The system of fixed mass across the boundary of which no mass transfer can take place is called as closed system. However, across the closed system the energy transfer may take place. An example is fluid being compressed by the piston in cylinder.
You are using the classical mechanics definition of a closed system.
“In nonrelativistic classical mechanics, a closed system is a physical system that doesn’t exchange any matter with its surroundings, and isn’t subject to any net force whose source is external to the system.”
That applies to mass and mechanical forces, but not radiation, which can enter and leave the system freely.
I suspect that you are confusing it with the definition of an isolated system in thermodynamics.
“an isolated system is either of the following: a physical system so far removed from other systems that it does not interact with them. a thermodynamic system enclosed by rigid immovable walls through which neither matter nor energy can pass.”
By the thermodynamic definition Earth is definately an open system.
The hydraulic analogies you discuss use water pressure or volume to illuatrate the energy flow, but you should not try to push them beyond their limits.
The reality is straightforward thermodynamics. Greenhouse gases absorb longwave radiation from the surface and reradiate it in all directions. A proportion of that reradiation is absorbed by the surface.
The net effect is to reduce the rate of energy loss from the surface.
Entropic man, you make the same mistakes as are in pseudoscience. You can consider an “open system” as a “closed system”, as long as all the mass and energy is accounted for.
And continuing to imply that “greenhouse gases” raise the temperature of the suface violates 2LoT for BOTH “open” and “closed” systems.
EM
May I suggest that you sit down and go through the definition you provided for an isolated system word by word. The earth fails in both those categories so it can’t be an isolated system.
You might finally get that you are in total confusion about a Thermodynamic closed system.
Energy in or out is permitted; matter cannot pass the boundary either way. Even a completely enclosed pot being heated is a closed system even though energy is emitted and absorbed.
It would help if you provide links to any quotes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_system
Note the caveat.
“A closed system is a physical system that does not allow certain types of transfers (such as transfer of mass and energy transfer) in or out of the system. The specification of what types of transfers are excluded varies in the closed systems of physics, chemistry or engineering.”
Could you make clear what definition of closed system you are referring to. Are you referring tto the definition used in classical mechanics, thermodynamics, chemistry or engineering?
I suggest that since the greenhouse effect is a thermodynamic effect, that is the definition you should be using.
Particularly, could you clarify where you stand on this.
“In thermodynamics, a closed system can exchange energy (as heat or work) but not matter, with its surroundings. An isolated system cannot exchange any heat, work, or matter with the surroundings, while an open system can exchange energy and matter. (This scheme of definition of terms is not uniformly used, though it is convenient for some purposes. In particular, some writers use ‘closed system’ where ‘isolated system’ is used here.)”
EM:
I have given you three references which basically are all the same. Examples are also given. It spelled out the Thermodynamic qualifier. I even simplified it for you.
Now you come up with a Wiki that should cover your position of open system. Tell me where does your open system fit in when matter does not move in or out, there are no real net forces on earth and energy freely comes in and out.
Show me on that reference where your open earth system fits as a unique system. How did you decide it was an open system?
I am off to bed so will look forward to what you say. Mine is much easier :).
Withinthermodynamicsthere are three main types ofthermodynamicsystems: open, closed and isolated.
Openthermodynamicsystem. It is said that a system is open if it allows a flow with the external environment, both mass and energy (throughheatand / or work and / or another form of energy), through its limit;
Thermodynamic closed system. Inthermodynamicsit is said to be closed if it allows a flow of energy with the external environment, through its frontier, (by means of heat and / or work and / or another form of energy), but not by mass;
https://solar-energy.technology/thermodynamics/thermodynamic-system
I have now provided three links… how many more do you want?
TonyM
I think we are agreed on the definition now. Both talking about Earth, and Eli’s setup as systems freely exchanging energy with their surroundings but without significant mass exchange.
In thermodynamic parlance, closed but not isolated.
Coming back to the plates, The purpose of the experiment is to compare energy under different steady state conditions.
Eli’s setup also meets the definition of a thermodynamic closed system once the plates are in place.
“The purpose of the experiment is to compare energy under different steady state conditions.”
No, the purpose of the “experiment” is to twist reality to fit imaginary pseudoscience.
entropic…”and Elis setup as systems freely exchanging energy with their surroundings but without significant mass exchange”.
The plates in Eli’s setup are not exchanging energy. There is a one way transfer of heat via EM. All from hot to cold.
Eli is confused, as are all climate alarmists.
I have already explained that in a transfer of heat from a hotter system to a cooler system via radiation that no heat flows between them. Heat decreases in one and increases in the other. That is the transfer, an apparent heat transfer, not an actual physical transfer of heat.
EM acts as the transfer agent when heat in the hotter body is converted to EM and that heat is lost. At the cooler body, the EM is absorbed and converted to heat.
That process is NOT reversible.
Sadly Gordon demonstrates utter confusion writing the plates in Eli’s setup are not exchanging energy.
The “silly wabbit” fools many with the blue/green plates nonsense. Most of the fools do not understand the relevant physics. It’s easy to understand, even without an indepth knowledge of the applicable laws.
Start with the plates in full contact. At equilibrium, the blue plate will be emitting 200 Watts/m^2 to the left, and the green plate will be emitting 200 Watts/m^2 to the right.
Now, move the plates one molecule apart. The blue plate would still be emitting 200 Watts/m^2 to the left, and to the right. The green plate would absorb all of the 200 Watts/m^2, but could only emit to the right. So both plates would still be at the equilibrium temperature of 244 K, just as they were, when in contact.
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
“Now, move the plates one molecule apart.”
Then two body radiation enters the example where only one body with a source of radiation existed. Radiative energy transfer has different physics than conductive energy transfer of which JD shows JD is unaware. One molecule apart, there are two plates radiating at each other where previously there was one plate.
8e3 is a bogus cartoon, learn some physics JD & do that by running real experiments. Separate a real plate into two by 1 molecule, 1mm, 1cm, 1m in a vacuum & measure what happens to equilibrium temperature of the plates (replicate E. Swanson’s results too). Let us know what you find (research view factor).
Oh, and try to understand physics of a closed system (one plate in equilibrium with a radiation source) with an open system (adding a plate).
After running the experiments JD, return the results here for peer review. JD’s 8e3 cartoon has been rejected by proper peer review if JD hasn’t noticed. Find a less reputable blog to publish the 8e3 cartoon JD, I recommend a blog with sophistry in the title.
More desperate fluff from fluffball.
He always gets it wrong.
Nothing new.
Right, nothing new JD, because you neglect to learn some physics and do some experiments. To those that don’t learn some physics, nothing is ever new. Just as JD always writes.
Learn some physics JD, enjoy something new to JD. Or just keep having 8e3 rejected by proper peer review since this blog is very entertained by JD’s antics.
Ball4
Your advice to JDHuffman is excellent. I have attempted the same. He will ignore it. This troll hates to get his hands dirty with actual experiment. It is all his thinking and declarations. Experiments are taboo since they would demonstrate his incorrect ideas. He gets his praise from the goofball Postma that thinks he is a genius above all the others. I have read his posts, he understands nothing but he is great at shutting down opposing thoughts.
Postma pats g.e.r.a.n on the head and he gushes in pride. It makes him think he is intelligent. You show him that he is a quack but he does not like the truth.
Keep it up though.
Norman, did you ever wonder why you misrepresent, falsely accuse, and insult others so much?
It’s because you have nothing else going for you.
Nothing new.
A Joe Postma ID used to post here until the proper peer review process ran it off. JD prefers to stay and provide great entertainment.
Something new for JD would be to take the ideal proper green plate equilibrium 1LOT solution with the BB blue plate at 262K and then paint the blue plate side facing the green plate with a highly reflecting metallic paint as shown in JD’s 6c3. With that blue plate side aborbing less it would also emit less and the green plate would still emit the same at first with a new equilibrium to be established.
What happens JD? JD already wrote JD knows what would happen above.
Fluffball, and his sidekick Norman Grinvalds, continue to demonstrate their alacrity to pervert reality.
Nothing new.
JD prefers nothing new. Nothing new.
When fluffball and Norman Grinvalds start mentioning g.e.r.a.n and Postma, you know they are defeated.
The funny thing is, they don’t know it!
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
You do exactly what you attribute to other posters.
YOU: “Norman, did you ever wonder why you misrepresent, falsely accuse, and insult others so much?”
This is what you do in most your posts. You totally misrepresent what people say. When they try to explain it to you, then you go off and say they are rambling or taking typing class.
You insult in most your posts and then think it is bad when you are on the receiving end. You called me a Con-Man repeatedly in many many posts. You call a very intelligent poster, Tim Folkerts, dim.
You make fun of and taunt anyone who uses actual physics against your many unsupported declarations, just like Postma does. You are his disciple and that is why we bring it up.
Well Norman, you just keep typing out your usual drivel. Nothing but misrepresentations, false accusations, and insults. You have no respect for reality. And you can’t learn.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
More of your unsupported declarations. The same thing you do with physics. You make declarations. I ask you to support them. You divert and dodge and weave and pretend to be doing something of value.
YOU: “Nothing but misrepresentations, false accusations, and insults.”
Okay what are my misrepresentations. Be specific. What false accusations? Be specific. You insult and taunt, you get it back. You act with decency and respect and you get that back.
I suppose you won’t address my questions. Maybe you will repeat your post as if you think that makes it more credible.
Now Norman, we both know this is just a waste of time. If you were sincerely concerned about all your irrational behavior, all you would have to do is just read your recent comments.
But, just so you can practice more of your denial, here’s some recent examples of your misrepresentations, false accusations, and insults:
*This troll hates to get his hands dirty with actual experiment.
*Experiments are taboo since they would demonstrate his incorrect ideas.
*You totally misrepresent what people say.
*You make fun of and taunt anyone who uses actual physics against your many unsupported declarations
Have fun typing out your rambling denials.
JD…”When fluffball and Norman Grinvalds start mentioning g.e.r.a.n and Postma, you know they are defeated.”.
Actually, Postma nailed it when he claimed we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do.
JDHuffman
YOU consider this incorrect: *This troll hates to get his hands dirty with actual experiment.”
Absolute factual. You are a troll and you do not do experiments. How you call that untrue is just you making up reality.
Another one: *Experiments are taboo since they would demonstrate his incorrect ideas.”\
Again totally correct on my part! You complain about E. Swanson’s experiment but you will NOT do your own and it is because it would prove you wrong. Totally true assessment of who you are! You can take the E. Swanson Blue plate and have the green plate touching, then move them away. The green plate will cool and the blue plate will warm. You say it won’t but you will NEVER verify your declarations with actual experiment.
So far I am 100% correct on both those statements about you. Not even close to being wrong in any way.
Again: “*You totally misrepresent what people say.”
Yes you do this quite often with my posts. When I explain my point you claim it is rambling. You don’t even know what you do on this blog do you?
Finally: *You make fun of and taunt anyone who uses actual physics against your many unsupported declarations”
Absolute truth. I score 100% on all those statements.
You make fun of many posters and then talk about their work and jobs and how they have dead end jobs, I have seen you do this often.
Yup you are a complete phony and your post is validation of your bad behavior on this blog.
Clean up your act!
Norman, you make me right, again.
Your imaginative perversions of reality form your opinions. You mentioned that someone had called you a “con man”. I would disagree with that description. You’re not smart enough to con anyone but yourself, and maybe a few adolescents.
But, at least you can type.
JDHuffman
So even on this issue about your character, you will not defend anything I say about you but just counter with a meaningless empty post (like 90% of your dumb posts).
What experiments have you ever performed? You draw a couple of incorrect cartoons and that is about all.
You have not pointed out which of my comments about you are false or misleading. They are all totally correct. You just have zero knowledge of physics and you have no clue how science works.
Ball4 is correct, the peer process works. You are just a phony pretending to know something. When confronted or asked for evidence you go off on long unrelated comments and then you say others divert. Most know this about you. I think you are only fooling Gordon Robertson. The rest know you are a complete phony.
Grinvalds, I don’t waste much time with you, defending myself. You’re going to try to discredit anyone that does not belong to your false religion. You’re a zealot. The more that delusional clowns like you attack me, the more I enjoy it.
Now, your 1000-word typing exercise, please.
JDHuffman
YOU: “Grinvalds, I dont waste much time with you, defending myself. Youre going to try to discredit anyone that does not belong to your false religion. Youre a zealot. The more that delusional clowns like you attack me, the more I enjoy it.”
The more correct concept would be that I discredit the idiots, like you and Gordon Robertson, that make skeptics look stupid with blatant denial of science and making up all kinds of silly unsupported ideas.
That would be a much better conclusion.
Also you now admit you are here only to troll. Your own words reveal the truth. You want to provoke people to attack you because you enjoy it. That is complete troll behavior.
Will you ever be honest and admit you have zero background in physics and look around the web a bit to read a few things here and there and then pretend you know something about science. Be honest with yourself. It will help you.
He says 12 semester hours:
https://tinyurl.com/ycs3v5ko
Norman, that is not even close to 1000 words. You can do better, boy.
Start banging on that keyboard.
And thanks Svante, a little reality really stands out next to Norman’s nonsense.
“He says 12 semester hours:”
And yet astoundingly, he avoided learning the main thing one is supposed to learn in physics courses, how to solve problems using actual physics equations.
He believes equations need not apply. His problem-solving approach is guessing, as he does with the GPE problem, or declaring as he does with the Moon problem.
Nate shows up with his usual misrepresentations and false accusations, rendering him completely irrelevant.
The poor boy just can’t learn.
JD gives his usual fine-print disclaimer – the one that everyone has learned by now to ignore.
ball4…”Radiative energy transfer has different physics than conductive energy transfer of which JD shows…”
There is no such thing as generic radiative energy transfer. There is radiative heat transfer and the 2nd law specifies it in one direction only.
Are you claiming that EM can be transferred from one body to another and still exist in either body as EM? EM does not exist as an independent entity in the atoms of a body, it is created when the electrons in those atoms change energy levels. It is destroyed as EM when converted back to heat in a cooler body.
The difference between heat transfer via conduction and via radiation, is the medium. With conduction, the heat is transferred atom to atom. With radiation, the heat is converted to EM transferred by EM, then converted back.
You can claim that as a radiative energy transfer but it is heat being transferred, not EM. Heat can only be transferred in one direction only unless an external compensation is provided to make it happen.
“Are you claiming that EM can be transferred from one body to another and still exist in either body as EM?”
No. Heat entity does not exist in an object Gordon. Proven by experiment in the mid1800s.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
JD…”Start with the plates in full contact. At equilibrium, the blue plate will be emitting 200 Watts/m^2 to the left, and the green plate will be emitting 200 Watts/m^2 to the right.
Now, move the plates one molecule apart”.
The problem is, JD, Eli specified the blue plate is independently heated. Then it transfers energy to the cooler GP. Energy is then transferred from the cooler GP and absorbed by the hotter BP to raise its temperature.
It’s all quite hilarious. In the process, the 2nd law is breached and perpetual motion is initiated.
Not once is heat mentioned, it is presumed. Eli believes that heat and EM are one and the same and that a two-way transfer takes place radiatively between bodies of different temperatures.
Fluffball still gets it wrong, ad infinitum.
Nothing new.
Tony,
Eli’s 2-plate system is purely radiative. Designed only to show to 2nd Law idiots that the introduction of a cooler object can inhibit energy loss from a warmer object receiving constant heat, whereby it warms. Matter doesn’t enter into the equation. The open system comment is a red herring.
If the introduction of the green plate is what you think makes an open system, this is just an analogy for Earth with and without an atmosphere, a typical thought experiment. There’s no inconsistency.
barry, if you start with two plates together, why would pullling them slightly apart cause one’s temperature to increase? When have you ever seen that happen, in reality?
You are letting your belief system make you into a fool.
In an enclosed system all objects will assume exactly the temperature , regardless what they are made off or what color they are ,
this is as basic as you get , if you don’t know this go back to your skool return your degrees in fizzix and ask for your money back.
exactly the same temperature
Not if the enclosed system incorporates a variable energy source and a lag effect.
(I haven’t been following the discussion – I’m only addressing that particular statement.)
And I’m sure you mean an isolated system. In thermodynamics, a closed system allows for an energy transfer into and out of the system. It is ‘closed’ only to mass transfer.
BDB, please stop trolling.
Yes, Eben. I wonder what the 2nd Law idiots make of the Earth’s vertical temperature profile, where layers of atmosphere and oceans are at different temperatures.
barry…”Yes, Eben. I wonder what the 2nd Law idiots make of the Earths vertical temperature profile, where layers of atmosphere and oceans are at different temperatures”.
A no-brainer for someone who understand physics. Besides, this has nothing to do with the 2nd law
In the atmosphere, pressure is stratified by gravity. As air drops in pressure with altitude, with the volume and mass relatively constant, the temperature has to drop.
Temperature is the average kinetic energy of air molecules and if there are less air molecules per unit volume, there is less kinetic energy hence less heat and temperature. As you thin a gas it’s temperature drops toward 0K.
The oceans are not a gas and the Ideal Gas Law does not apply. Ocean water pressure increases with depth due to the weight of water above it. Some people claim the same is true in the atmosphere but that makes no sense.
Air does not have weight in the same sense as a body in which the atoms are bonded. If it did, we’d be walking around with the weight of large amounts of air above us.
In water, the water molecules are held together by weak charges and water at sea level weighs about 62.5 pounds per square foot. The equivalent amount of air molecules in a container would not weigh very much. A cubic foot of air weighs 0.0807 lbs.
Ocean temperature does not increase with water pressure because oceans are heated from the top. As one goes deeper, the water cools, and cooler water is more dense and sinks deeper. Therefore the coldest water is at the deepest depths.
Typo alert, Gordon:
“…water at sea level weighs about 62.5 pounds per square foot.>
That should be “62.5 pounds per cubic foot”.
Gordon: you say that and water at sea level weighs about 62.5 pounds per cubic foot (not square foot, as per your typo).
I think that you must have been tired when you posted this! Think about it: 62.5 pounds is over half a hundredweight (56 pounds).
This is where the metric system is so much easier!
1 cubic foot = 2.8368 litres.
1 litre of water weighs 1 kilogram.
Hence 2.8368 litres = 2.8368 kilos (at 4 degrees Celsius).
2.8368 kilos = 6.254 pounds
i.e. 1 cubic foot of water = 6.254lbs.
Gordon – I apologise, you’re right re. the amount of water in a cubic foot of water – see my later post, my calculation is decimal point out!
JD…”Typo alert, Gordon:
“…water at sea level weighs about 62.5 pounds per square foot.>
That should be “62.5 pounds per cubic foot”.”
***********
Thanks, JD, obviously a cubic foot of water.
carbon500…It’s kind of amazing all the same that a cu ft of water could weigh that much.
I remember some things uncannily and that one seems to be engraved on the inside of my eyelids. I reworked it as follows:
1 cu ft = 28,316.8 cc and 1 cc = 1 gram.
28,316.8 grams = 28.317 KG and 1 Kg = 2.2 pounds
28.317 kg x 2.2 pounds/Kg = 62.3 pounds
This calculator gets 62.428 pounds for some reason. I would guess the discrepancy comes in how many decimals you use.
https://www.inchcalculator.com/water-weight-calculator/
1 Kg actually = 2.20462 pounds
so, 2.20462 pounds/Kg x 28.3168 Kg = 62.42778 pounds
rounding off = 62.43 pounds
I guess I learned an approximation.
Those units are man-made, weight does not exist.
Svante, please stop trolling.
I did a bit, didn’t I? Gordon didn’t catch it so the damage was limited.
Dont worry, a little bit of trolling can be fun sometimes.
Gordon, it seems to me that the 2nd Law idiots would think that if one layer of the ocean/atmosphere thermal system became permanently warmer, the other layers that were warmer than it would remain unaffected.
EG,
The deepest part of the ocean is about 4C. The surface, 16C+ on average.
If the bottom most layer was heated by 10C, I believe the 2nd Law idiots would argue that the surface temperature would remain completely unchanged. Because the bottom waters would still be colder than the surface – by 2C – and heat cannot flow from cold to hot.
You seem to know why Earth’s average vertical temperature profile is relatively stable. Do you think the surface waters would heat or remain the same temperature in this scenario?
barry, you need to define your term “2nd Law idiots”.
Are 2nd Law idiots those that are uneducated, or willingly ignorant, or both?
barry…”The deepest part of the ocean is about 4C. The surface, 16C+ on average.
If the bottom most layer was heated by 10C, I believe the 2nd Law idiots would argue that the surface temperature would remain completely unchanged”.
The 2nd law only tells you in which direction heat can flow, the problem you pose in one of thermal conductivity. It’s also a problem of heat dissipation.
As it stands, with the surface at 16C and the bottom at 4C, there is continuous gradient of 12 degrees from the surface to the depths. Heat will flow from the surface downward. If you raise the bottom by 10C, to 14C then there is only a 2C gradient and the rate of cooling will slow down.
Don’t forget what Mike used to point out about geothermal activity at the bottom of the oceans.
And don’t forget that the oceans never get colder than freezing no matter how deep they go. That is likely related to pressure as well and heat from the Earth.
When miners tunnel into the Earth, the deeper they go, the hotter it gets.
The rock faces in this gold mine are claimed to be 140 F. Hotter than a hot bath.
https://gizmodo.com/terrifying-facts-about-the-worlds-deepest-gold-mine-1484301368
Gordon,
As it stands, with the surface at 16C and the bottom at 4C, there is continuous gradient of 12 degrees from the surface to the depths. Heat will flow from the surface downward. If you raise the bottom by 10C, to 14C then there is only a 2C gradient and the rate of cooling will slow down.
And if the rate of cooling of the surface waters slows down due to a reduced temp gradient to the bottom waters, does the surface then get warmer or stay the same temperature?
That’s the question I asked. What do you say?
barry, please stop trolling.
JDHuffman
You can see it happen here.
https://app.box.com/s/5wxidf87li5bo588q2xhcfxhtfy52oba
You ask why? The reason has been given to you. When the plates are together the blue plate transfers energy to the green plate via conduction. When they are moved apart the conduction heat transfer goes to zero. So now the blue plate can only lose energy via radiative loss. The maximum it could lose if the green plate was at near absolute zero would be 200 Watts/m^2 on the side facing the green plate. With the green plate considerably warmer than absolute zero it transfers energy back to the blue plate. The amount of energy the blue plate can transfer to the green plate is much less than it could transfer by conduction so the temperature goes up. Really simple, well established physics. I have linked you to the real science many times. I can’t do anything when you think experiments are bogus, valid science is pseudoscience and anything Joseph Postma tells you is absolute truth.
Norman, your “physics” is from wiki. Consequently, you have no depth. But if you were able to use your head, you could figure this out.
If the plates are together, the blue plate is emitting 200 Watts/m^2 to the left, due to its equilibrium temperature. Pulling them apart does not change that. It is then still emitting 200 Watts/m^2 to the left, and then also emitting the same to the right.
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
It’s okay if you don’t understand. You don’t have enough background, and you can’t thiink for yourself. Just be glad you are able to type.
JDHuffman
YOU: “Norman, your “physics” is from wiki. Consequently, you have no depth. But if you were able to use your head, you could figure this out.”
There is one example of how you are dishonest. I have posted to you more than one link to valid sources of heat transfer physics. So this is a completely false statement (similar to most of what you post).
I do understand you graphic is complete crap not based on any physics. Just some nonsense you made up. You have zero experimental evidence to support is and zero established physics to support your cartoon crap!
Pulling the plates apart changes everything. If you had studied any physics on heat transfer you would know this. Since you have not studied anything and make up stuff you will never get it right!
When you pull them apart you no longer have conduction heat transfer. It emits the same, which is correct, but it is receiving energy from the green plate. The green plate cools because it is receiving the same amount of energy from the blue plate but it now has twice the radiating surface. All basic, all well understood by people who can read heat transfer textbooks.
Wrong again, Norman.
The only way the green plate can cause a temperature rise in the blue plate would be if it were a heat source, or an insulator. But, it is neither. It is a black body, which absorbs all IR from a hotter black body.
You just don’t get that from your wiki-“physics”….
JDHuffman
YOU: “It is a black body, which absorbs all IR from a hotter black body.”
Yes indeed that is what a blackbody would do. However you forget a blackbody also emits the maximum amount of IR at a temperature. Gray bodies emit less energy at the same temperature.
You also forget there is a constant input of “new” energy. The blue plate is a heat source to the green plate in this case. It sends IR to the green plate, which the green plate absorbs and warms and begins emitting IR.
The green plate acts like a heat shield for the blue plate. It absorbs all the IR the blue plate emits toward it so that none goes through. I do not get my physics from wiki. How about textbooks on heat transfer that are available online.
Poor Norman, you are so desperate.
Most of what you banged out on your keyboard was irrelevant. But the funny parts were:
“The green plate acts like a heat shield for the blue plate.”
You pathetic clown, a “black body” is NOT a “heat shield”! The two are opposites!
“I do not get my physics from wiki.”
I agree, not even wiki has such perverted physics.
Great comedy, some of your best.
JDHuffman
Any object will act as a radiant heat shield. If your source is emitting 20,000 watts/m^2 of energy and you surround it with an object, you will not receive 20,000 watts/m^2 of energy. Any object in front of the source that is not transparent to that energy will be a heat shield.
A blackbody would be a poor heat shield as once it warmed up it would begin emitting but the blackbody surrounding your source would only emit half the energy of the source, the rest would be emitted back to the source.
Norman, you have a huge deficit in the relevant physics. That’s why you are always arguing with yourself. If you claim the green plate is a black body, it doesn’t work for you. If you claim it is a “heat shield”, it doesn’t work for you.
Your pathetic pseudoscience just doesn’t work.
But at least you are funny, and you can type out your humor for all to enjoy.
barry…”Elis 2-plate system is purely radiative. Designed only to show to 2nd Law idiots that the introduction of a cooler object can inhibit energy loss from a warmer object receiving constant heat, whereby it warms”.
No it can’t. It can only affect the rate of heat dissipation. The rate of cooling/warmer is directly controlled by the heat source.
Norman is still confused about that as it seems are you. Norman thinks that if you increase the air temperature in a room that is cooler than a heated object, that the cooler air in the room will transfer thermal energy to the hotter body to warm the heated object.
That is incorrect. The heated object dissipates heat according to the difference of temperature between it and the ambient air. If you cool the air, increasing the temperature difference, the body will cool. If you increase the air temperature the body will warm.
If you have an electrically heated body and you completely stifle it’s means of dissipating heat, like conduction, convection, and radiation, the body’s temperature will be set by the electrical power supplied to it.
When you introduce a means of heat dissipation, the body will cool from its natural temperature set by the electric current supplied to it. The more you increase the means of dissipating heat, the more the body will cool.
If you reverse that process, by stifling its means of heat dissipation, the body will warm TOWARD ITS NATURAL TEMPERATURE, produced by the electric current. The room air has nothing to do with the warming as far as supplying heat to the system.
With Eli’s blue/green plates, the BP receives energy and warms. If there is no GP in the vicinity, the BP will warm to a temperature related to its ability to dissipate heat under the ambient conditions.
If you bring the GP near to the BP, you interfere with the BP’s ability to dissipate heat via convection and radiation. That will cause it to warm toward it’s natural temperature with all dissipation stifled.
Radiation from the GP is not warming the BP.
My explanation satisfies the 2nd law, Eli’s does not.
Gordon Robertson
How does the Green Plate interfere with the Blue Plate’s ability to dissipate heat via radiation?
Also you state: “If you have an electrically heated body and you completely stifle its means of dissipating heat, like conduction, convection, and radiation, the bodys temperature will be set by the electrical power supplied to it.”
What exactly does that mean? There is not set temperature in this case. The body will continue to increase in temperature until it melts or vaporizes and there is no longer an electrical flow.
I have not the slightest clue where you get your ideas from. They seem like random streams of thought. Anything you want to post you do regardless of how illogical it might be or meaningless.
Another NOTE: “Norman is still confused about that as it seems are you. Norman thinks that if you increase the air temperature in a room that is cooler than a heated object, that the cooler air in the room will transfer thermal energy to the hotter body to warm the heated object.”
Yes it actually will do exactly this. I have already shown you this more than once.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Elastischer_sto%C3%9F.gif
This is a represents the energy transfer from an object with temperature to one at absolute zero. All the energy of the hotter object is transferred to the absolute zero one and no energy is returned to the hotter object.
In this case (which is what happens in most heat transfer systems)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Elastischer_sto%C3%9F2.gif
The hotter object transfers its energy to the colder object, the colder object transfer less energy to the hotter object. The HEAT flows from hot to cold but energy exchange goes both ways.
You will notice that as the cold object gets warmer it transfers more and more energy back to the hotter object. When they are at the same temperature they exchange the same amount of energy to each other. The surface atoms and molecules do not stop moving, they are in motion always if the object has temperature, they are always colliding with each other and exchanging energy.
norman…”How does the Green Plate interfere with the Blue Plates ability to dissipate heat via radiation?
Also you state: If you have an electrically heated body and you completely stifle its means of dissipating heat, like conduction, convection, and radiation, the bodys temperature will be set by the electrical power supplied to it.
What exactly does that mean? There is not set temperature in this case. The body will continue to increase in temperature until it melts or vaporizes and there is no longer an electrical flow”.
*****
Without the GP, the BP is free to radiate in all directions. I have presumed a metal plate for both since swannie specified that in his original experiment. Metals blocks EM. If you bring a metal GP into close proximity with a radiating BP, the metal will block the IR.
If both plates were insulators, it would be interesting to see the effect. If the radiation from the non-conductive BP could pass right through the non-conductive GP, I doubt whether the BP would warm.
**********
If you run an electric current through a conductor, as is required in a heater, the conductor has resistance. In heaters, the resistance is made intentionally of a higher resistance.
The tungsten filament in a 100 watt light bulb reaches temperatures of several thousand degrees. That temperature is maintained by the electrical current supplied by the lamp voltage through the tungsten resistance.
The solution that converts power to temperature is here:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/176918/how-to-calculate-temperature-of-an-incandescent-bulb-filament
The authors use Stefan-Boltzman, Planck, etc., to convert the temperature of a 10W halogen lamp from its power.
I = fi x T^4
It would be simpler with a 10W resistor emulating a heater because you would not have to worry about visible radiation.
The bottom line is that a resistance with a fixed electrical current through it has a fixed temperature, depending on the material of the resistance. That is the basis of the Stefan Law, in which he got his data from an experiment by Tyndall in which the latter ran an electric current through a platinum filament resistance till it glowed colours.
The temperature range of the platinum filament ranged from something like 500C through 1400C, depending on the current through it.
You can run current through a tungsten filament in a vacuum tube. There is no air in the tube Most of the IR is absorbed by the plate, a cylinder surrounding a bare filament (some use another cylinder around the filament, the cathode}.
Heat gets transferred through the supporting structure to the base and the glass. I have seen plates in vacuum tubes glowing red due to bombardment by electrons.
If you run that tube in an ambient environment where it can dissipate the heat, it will last for years. However, if you increase the temperature of the environment too high, the tube’s glass will literally melt. I have seen power vacuum tubes develop a bubble then explode.
ENTROPIC MAN -LET’S BE CONSERVATIVE
solar irradiance decrease – .1c temp. change.
1/2 of 1% increase in albedo – -.3c temp. change.
One Major sulfate volcanic eruption – -1.0c temp. change for 2 years
Less UV light – -.3c change in oceanic surface waters.
I am saying if solar output is in a prolonged minimum state modified by a geo magnetic field in sync with it, that all the above can be accomplished and the numbers are on the conservative side.
This would equate at a minimum, to a -.4c change in global temperatures and a -.3c change in oceanic surface water temperatures with out taken into consideration any major volcanic activity which would add another -1.0c over a few years.
I say an increase in global albedo could easily be accomplished through greater snow, cloud coverage and major volcanic activity, and the probability of at east one major volcanic eruption over the next few years is at least 50%.
A 0.5% increase in albedo to the above is not unreasonable.
If the above takes place we have entrenched global cooling and all of the global warming since the end of the Little Ice Age would be well on the way to being removed.
ALBEDO
A Change to the Earth’s albedo is a powerful driver of climate. When the planet’s albedo or reflectivity increases, more incoming sunlight is reflected back into space. This has a cooling effect on global temperatures. Conversely, a drop in albedo warms the planet. A change of just 1% to the Earth’s albedo has a radiative effect of 3.4 Wm-2, comparable to the forcing from a doubling of CO2.
And of course the earth’s albedo has been decreasing in recent decades, due to, and amplifying, our warming of the planet.
And of course you think past not the future.
Right, of course, I visit this site because I am worried about what will happen in the past.
Salvatore del prete says:
May 1, 2018 at 9:46 AM
“I still say by the summer of 2018 global temperatures will be near a 0 deviation according to Dr. Spencers satellite data ,and in year 2019 at or below 1981-2010 averages.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2018-0-21-deg-c/#comment-299967
David, please stop trolling.
“And of course the earths albedo has been decreasing in recent decades, due to, and amplifying, our warming of the planet.”
I do not agree.
From NASA we can read the following (dated 2014):
“In the early 2000s, after the first few years of Terra-CERES measurements, it appeared that Earth’s albedo was declining, a phenomenon that was widely reported in scientific journals and on NASA Earth Observatory. But as more years of data accumulated, and as scientists began to better understand the data, they found that albedo was neither increasing nor declining over time. It was fluctuating a lot by year, though.”
Two pictures confirm this, each in a different manner:
1. https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/84000/84499/albedo_change.jpg
2. https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/84000/84499/global_albedo_changes.png
That is what I had just sent. The big question is will and if it does how much could the albedo of the earth increase due to greater cloud,snow coverage and major volcanic activity.
I guess it will depend on how much those items increase. I will say if they increase in any measure it is going to translate to a higher albedo.
Throw in sea ice also.
“… how much could the albedo of the earth increase due to greater cloud,snow coverage and major volcanic activity.”
As all ‘skeptic’s, Salvatore, you always restrict what you write to what fits to your own narrative, and deliberately ignore the rest (including albedo increase due to factors you do not seem to know about, e.g. brute force deforestation in primary rain forests, letting sand appear instead of tree leaves).
Thus I repeat: outside of exceptional situations like major changes in the three Milankovich cycles, there are as many reasons on Earth for albedo decrease as for albedo increase.
Look at albedo changes between 1985 and 2015 on the same year’s day:
January 1985
ftp://ftp.glcf.umd.edu/glcf/GLASS/ABD/AVHRR/1985/GLASS02B05.V04.A1985001.BSA_NIR.jpg
January 2015
ftp://ftp.glcf.umd.edu/glcf/GLASS/ABD/AVHRR/2015/GLASS02B05.V04.A2015001.BSA_NIR.jpg
July 1985
ftp://ftp.glcf.umd.edu/glcf/GLASS/ABD/AVHRR/1985/GLASS02B05.V04.A1985185.BSA_NIR.jpg
July 2015
ftp://ftp.glcf.umd.edu/glcf/GLASS/ABD/AVHRR/2015/GLASS02B05.V04.A2015185.BSA_NIR.jpg
and try to draw correct conclusions.
My main computer is damaged, so I can’t provide you with exact anomaly data as usual.
Bindidon – your thinking just is not there when it comes to why I think the albedo moving forward is likely to increase. You are not connecting the dots for some reason.
salvatore del prete says:
April 25, 2018 at 2:17 PM
“One thing I am sure of which is global temperatures will not be increasing from this point on.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/04/new-lewis-curry-study-concludes-climate-sensitivity-is-low/#comment-299182
David, please stop trolling.
binny…”But as more years of data accumulated, and as scientists began to better understand the data, they found that albedo was neither increasing nor declining over time. It was fluctuating a lot by year, though”.
This may come as a shock but I am being nice to you today.
Murry Salby thinks the same thing is going on with CO2 concentration. He does not think it is increasing as claimed, he thinks our anthropogenic contribution is affecting the natural conservation balance of CO2 and the increase we see is natural CO2 adjusting to our input.
Anthropogenic CO2 is a small fraction of natural CO2 in the short term. Salby thinks it is the natural CO2 causing the appearance of a linear trend in atmospheric CO2 while it adjusts and compensates.
binny…the intro by someone else is tedious, the talk by Salby is interesting, complete with the math and graphs.
This guy is no lightweight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeCqcKYj9Oc
Salby couldn’t keep a job anywhere. Wonder why?
Only deniers like Gordon think he matters.
DA: which part of the graph Salby presents at 1:02:09 in the link supplied do you deem incorrect, and why?
Salvatore
0.4C cooling would put us back to 1980s temperatures.
What rate of change do you expect?
A statistically significant change in global temperature is +/-0.2C. Depending on the dataset you use, we are seeing 0.12C/decade(UAH) to 0.18C/decade(GISS) warming which becomes significant after 1-2 decades.
If you see 0.2C/decade cooling that becomes significant after 1 decade.
Shall we come back to this when UAH shows 13 month averages around anomaly 0C
.4c IN LESS THEN ONE DECADE FROM NOW.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
April 4, 2018 at 12:48 PM
“This year is a turn point in the climate.
“No further global warming.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/04/uah-global-temperature-updated-for-march-2018-0-24-deg-c/#comment-295951
David, please stop trolling.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/84499/measuring-earths-albedo
There really has been no trend in albedo in the past but I expect it to increase now moving forward..
That data* has been extended to Sept. 2016 now Salvatore, albedo is reported to have had a trend down 2000 to 2016 of around -0.57 +/- .19 W/m^2/decade in that time with LW out trending up (to get back toward equilibrium) around 0.35 +/- 0.24 W/m^2/decade for ASR of +0.35 W/m^2/decade consistent with the UAH TLT product showing an increase in the period.
“..trends in TOA flux for this short record are still primarily driven by internal variability of the climate system..” Meaning ENSO in particular: “CERES TOA fluxes exhibit pronounced interannual variability driven primarily by ENSO. (Albedo) variations in the Arctic are noteworthy and are tied to changes in sea ice coverage”
*Loeb 2018
..LW out maybe trending up (to get back toward equilibrium) around 0.19 +/- .21 W/m^2/decade..
Again you are talking the past where as I am talking about the future.
IF you could Ball send the albedo data up to year 2016. Thanks
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0208.1
See Fig. 9a for all-sky global albedo graph through 2016 observed in CERES view field.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
February 20, 2018 at 6:37 PM
“Year 2018 the year AGW ends. Oceanic global temperatures only +.15c or so above means will be going lower and albedo is going to increase slightly all due to very low sustained solar activity.
“Very confident.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/diagnosing-climate-sensitivity-assuming-some-natural-warming/#comment-288281
David, please stop trolling.
California Governor: “In Less than Five Years, Even the Worst Skeptics Will Be Believers”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/18/california-governor-in-less-than-five-years-even-the-worst-skeptics-will-be-believers/
Apparently it seems Jerry going kill hundreds of Californian in order the make them all believers.
“In an interview on CBS’s Face the Nation, Brown countered President Donald Trump’s repeated assertion that the fires are due to poor forest management. Citing a study that found the amount of land burnt in California over the past 15 years has doubled because of climate change, Brown noted that the only way to ensure “long-term forest health” is reducing carbon emissions to zero.
If that can’t be done, “you’re gonna see these fires not only continuing, but getting worse by the year, as they are,” Brown said.”
https://mic.com/articles/192534/california-gov-jerry-brown-climate-skeptics-will-be-believers-within-5-years-as-wildfires-rage#.acTGaIHYf
Every year Brown remains in power, we will get more forest fires and more people dying
Because carbon emission can not go to zero. Nor does Jerry have a plan to have even have California CO2 emission go to zero.
In 2014: 359 million metric tonnes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
hmm, this says:
“California’s factories, power plants, farms and cars pumped 441.5 million metric tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in 2014, according to the California Air Resources Board.”
https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/California-s-greenhouse-gas-emissions-drop-8342038.php
You think if it was important, the Ca government would accurately measure it and have accurate numbers available for the public.
Something like National debt clocks, and have billboards letting everyone know
But as I was saying Jerry not getting California to zero, but even if he did it would zero effect upon global CO2 levels.
And since it will not go to zero, Jerry plans on letting more forest fires burn out control and kill people and cost tens of billions of dollars in property damages.
Now California has long been controlled by Dem party and 67% of democrats in California think global warming is very important.
https://www.ppic.org/publication/californians-views-on-climate-change/
But apparently Jerry going to have let them burn until there is 100% of the dems who think global warming is very important.
Nationally it’s different picture.
Large numbers of houses aren’t being burnt down by forest fires.
And when asked a question:
Worry a great deal/fair amount about global warming?
33% of reps and 62% independents with dems 91%
Think global warming will pose a serious threat in their lifetime?
Rep: 18% Independents: 45% Dems: 67%
https://news.gallup.com/poll/231530/global-warming-concern-steady-despite-partisan-shifts.aspx
Maybe we need a new question: Do you think global warming will pose a serious threat, if you were to have Jerry Brown as your governor?
Regarding Jerry Brown’s citing a study that found the amount of land burnt (land burns – that’s a new one!) in California over the past 15 years has doubled because of climate change – this begs the question: how and where exactly has the Californian climate changed over the last 15 years?
If Jerry Brown knows about global warming/climate change why has he not governed the State in order to save lives of Californians who would be killed by climate change.
Noah builds ark, Jerry lead people who mostly believes in global warming into destruction from the effects of global warming.
Jerry is the Pharaoh, he not Moses leading oppressed slaves, why isn’t Jerry listening to the god of his beliefs?
Why isn’t California a leader of US states in terms of CO2 reduction- at the very least.
California has most believers of global warming and the Governor does nothing to protect his faithful believer from this world ending destruction.
Carbon,
Tamino has an interesting statistical analysis of temp/rainfall patterns in Ca, compared with burn area.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/11/17/temperature-rainfall-and-california-wildfire/
Barry: I’ve had a look at the link you’ve given, and the following points occur to me.
Firstly, climate is far more complex than the author’s graphs suggest. In my opinion, he’s taken an extremely simplistic view to shore up his beliefs.
Take a look at the very interesting information about California’s climate here:
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_California
The daily temperature fluctuations for example are striking – in some parts, by 20C over every day, and this varies in different locations across the state.
How can average temperatures have any meaning given this variability?
Also, just look at the variations in climate types across California, from a Mediterranean type to desert.
Again, the question has to be answered if the claim is made that the climate over all all of California has altered – where have it changed, exactly – and how?
Other factors which influence wildfires of course include population increases and changes in the places where people opt to live, social habits (for example outdoor camping, barbecues, carelessly discarded cigarettes), malicious criminal acts (arson), and according to other information, even power line malfunctions – have a look on the internet.
From reading about California I would argue that yes, humans cause the majority of wildfires – but it’s got nothing to do with the supposed climate change due to CO2.
Look at some of the footage of the recent fire – burning embers carried high into the sky – it’s easy see how these spread so catastrophically. Summer brings dry conditions – and, sadly, danger. Minor atmospheric temperature fluctuations aren’t going to alter the situation.
carbon…”this begs the question: how and where exactly has the Californian climate changed over the last 15 years?”
Haven’t you heard, Malibu Beach is under 10 feet of water, all snow on the Sierra Nevadas has melted, there are droughts in California, as usual, and the dry vegetation due to the droughts causes forest fires.[sarc /off]
Oh…the climate of apathy of Californians toward paying taxes that might alleviate forest fires and the means of fighting them, has changed. For the worse.
Meanwhile, they use their precious water to fill swimming pools.
March 2018…16 feet of snow falls on Sierra Nevadas in California. Unfortunately, NOAA has moved its 3 thermometers covering California to the warmer beach area.
https://weather.com/news/news/2018-03-19-16-feet-snow-sierra-nevada-march/
See Gordon lie like a clown, unable to accept that Malibu has serious fire problems now.
Isn’t Gordon clever? He cares for no one but himself.
DA, when are you headed to Malibu to fight the fires?
Be sure to send photos.
The stratospheric polar vortex pattern is now compatible with the geomagnetic field in the north.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00974/cnmueyvarvlf.png
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00974/ayyy3q52xnqp.jpg
These exchanges are are becoming more like exercises in futility which is why I rarely post. I attempted to address analogies which are often not appropriate. In Barry’s case there were three:
1. plates to represent the radiation exchange of gases.
2. The objection based on tropopause and stratosphere lapse rates differing from the troposphere.
3. The high pressure gas cylinder as a “proof” that pressure does not matter in developing T of atmosphere.
So I began with the plates saying basically FOR A START earth is an open system vs Eli’s system and then went on to highlight a whole set of issues raised by G&T. Heavens we got stuck in reverse gear with a tirade from Barry and Entropic re earth not being a closed system with others joining the fray including that it waltzes in and out of open and closed classification; split personality of two different systems.
This all misses the point. Even if I had been wrong, which I was not, it does not address the key issues raised by G&T. Halpern got his butt kicked but would not present this plate experiment to them. Of course not; they would laugh at him. He knows that! He gets his adulation from his admirers but that is a poor substitute for addressing the specific physics issues raised.
Barry, yes G&T do know about Clausius: they speak German too.
Once again, we never claimed – allegedly with reference to Clausius – that a colder body does not send radiation to a warmer one. Rather, we cite a paper, in which Clausius treats the radiative exchange [19, 20]. The correct question is, whether the colder body that radiates less intensively than the warmer body warms up the warmer one. The answer is: It does not.
The Stefan–Boltzmann T^4-law does only apply to an idealized black body, that is a cavity with a hole placed in a heat bath of constant temperature T .
Global climatologists use crude approximations, from which they compute tiny variations of measurable quantities unscrupulously. This is inadmissible. One example is the conjectured atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect. Even if their theory were correct, the error bars would render their predictions useless, since being gigantic.
Gaseous layers never obey the Stefan–Boltzmann T^4 law. All these calculations (e.g., the shell layer calculations performed in detail by Halpern et al.) are fundamentally wrong and prove nothing. The corresponding four pages of the comment by Halpern et al. are obsolete.
If one introduces discretizations (lattice cells, finite number of layers) one must always discuss either the continuum limit or the artifacts generated by the discretization thoroughly. The “philosophy” communicated by the numerical mathematician and global climatologist von Storch “The discretization is the
model” is not only simplistic but fundamentally unphysical.j
(an interesting footnote: It should be noted that von Storch was one of the first global climatologist who refuted the
“Hockey Stick” by Michael Mann et al. However, as his textbook shows, he still accepts the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse hypotheses.)
I could delve into a lot more but I ask to what purpose – more conflation, digression and merry go round music?
tonyM says:
“I could delve into a lot more but I ask to what purpose”
You might learn something. You taught me that the Sun has a thermostat, didn’t you?
“The Stefan–Boltzmann T^4-law does only apply to an idealized black body”
Learn about the emissivity factor epsilon here:
https://tinyurl.com/ycl5w8qj
It will change Eli’s numbers, but not the principle.
“The correct question is, whether the colder body that radiates less intensively than the warmer body warms up the warmer one. The answer is: It does not.”
Not the correct question which is:
..whether the colder body (space at 2.7K) that radiates less intensively than the warmer body (surface or blue plate) warms up the warmer one (surface, blue plate) when space is replaced by a warmer body (the atm. at 250K, or the green plate). The answer is: It does.
svante…”Learn about the emissivity factor epsilon here:
https://tinyurl.com/ycl5w8qj
It will change Elis numbers, but not the principle”.
*********
There is nowhere in that article where it is claimed ‘e’ operates in both directions between bodies of different temperatures. The only time that can be true is when both bodies are in thermal equilibrium.
When the body temperatures differ, one is absorbing and the other emitting. That is the basis of the Stefan-Boltsman equation, especially the Stefan equation I = (fi).T^4. He got the data to work out the formula from a platinum filament glowing (Tyndall) due to an electric current being run through it.
Nowhere in the work of S-B will you see an equation describing a two way transfer of EM. Nowhere in Kircheoff, who developed the theory of blackbodies and emissivity/absorp-tion, will you see a reference to bodies of different temperatures. All work done by Kircheoff was done at thermal equilibrium.
All the nonsense you read about two way transfers of heat between bodies of different temps comes from modernists presuming the S-B equation can be applied both ways, which it cannot.
Eli is one of those modernists who has got it wrong, even though it was explained to him patiently by G&T, two experts in thermodynamics.
Eli does not get it that EM and heat are two very different forms of energy and they cannot be summed and/or interchanged as he does it.
ball4…”Not the correct question which is:
..whether the colder body (space at 2.7K) that radiates less intensively than the warmer body (surface or blue plate) warms up the warmer one (surface, blue plate) when space is replaced by a warmer body (the atm. at 250K, or the green plate). The answer is: It does”.
More pseudo-science from bally. Your explanation contradicts the quantum theory of how electrons absorb and emit EM. There are specific rules that prohibit with EM, the equivalent of water running uphill without a pump of some kind, or water gaining energy by running downhill.
“Your explanation contradicts the quantum theory of how electrons absorb and emit EM.”
My explanation contradicts Gordon’s incorrect quantum theory of how electrons absorb and emit EM; my explanation is consistent with the actual quantum theory which explains that the whole atomic structure absorbs and emits light quanta. The atoms and molecules are vibrating in the plates & earth atm. Gordon, not just the electrons.
Just another Gordon gaffe in the Gordon gaffe wall.
It does not contradict the quantum theory.
The quantum theory is strictly mathematical. What it contradicts is the cartoon depiction of quantum mechanics used in education to give the theory a physical form.
As Einstein said near the end of his career: “All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, What are light quanta?. Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken.”
What do you mean by “It”? Quantum theory has made much progress since Einstein’s time.
You need only study the basics of quantum jumps in molecular spin and rotation modes to understand the vast majority of birth and death of photons in Earth’s atm. Gordon insists on electron level jumps being important in meteorology but they aren’t as energy for those levels is not available so not important in Earth atm. troposphere.
ball4…”My explanation contradicts Gordons incorrect quantum theory of how electrons absorb and emit EM; my explanation is consistent with the actual quantum theory which explains that the whole atomic structure absorbs and emits light quanta”.
Light, as in visible light, is not heat and it is not the heat-related IR of which we speak. Even at that, the reason we see colours is that objects absorb some EM and reflect the rest. Therefore what you claim is simply wrong.
I have explained quantum theory basics regarding electrons as theorized by Bohr, then Schrodinger. I have studied the basic theory extensively in electrical engineering and as part of earlier training in electronics.
Electron theory ‘IS’ quantum theory. The entire basis of quantum theory is the interaction of electrons with the nucleus. Schrodinger based his equation on that, regarding the electron as orbiting the nucleus at discrete quantum levels.
Once again, when an electron transitions down from one quantum level to another it emits a quantum of EM with an intensity equal to the difference in energy between the levels, in electron volts.
The frequency of the EM comes from the frequency of the electron, which is based on its orbiting velocity. The equation is E = hf.
That raises the question as to how a discrete quanta can have a frequency, which is a measure of the frequency in which one cycle occurs in a second. One cycle is the distance from one ‘WAVE’ crest to another and is related to wavelength by inversion.
In order to absorb EM, the intensity and frequency of the EM must match the frequency of the electron and the energy levels through which the electron must rise after absorbing the EM.
That is simply not possible when the energy and frequency of the EM comes from a lower temperature source. The lower temperature energy will simply be rejected and I don’t know and don’t care where it goes.
My explanation corresponds with the 2nd law, yours does not.
bill hunter…”The quantum theory is strictly mathematical. What it contradicts is the cartoon depiction of quantum mechanics used in education to give the theory a physical form”.
So you’re claiming electrons and atomic nuceii don’t exist. With one stroke, you have swept away a major portion of basic physics and chemistry.
I supplied the math in my reply to Ball4, which is a waste of time. I did it so others can see how much bs he spreads.
Let me awaken you from your slumber. I have worked in the electrical field, the electronics field, and the computer field, over a period of decades. I have received electrical shocks and I can tell you they are far from being mathematical. Although some math can be painful, it is never physically painful and dangerous to life.
I have seen the result of electron beams striking the phosphors on cathode ray displays and I have worked with magnetic deflection circuits that move an electron beam across a display both vertically and horizontally.
Is that a cartoon depiction?
Chemistry depends on electrons and proton-based nucleii being real to form the bonds that hold atoms together in molecules.
Just a cartoon…right??
After working with electrons at a distance over decades I don’t know if the simple Bohr model is correct. In ways, I don’t think it can be, but I’ll tell you something, electrons are far more than math. They are real particles with mass and a negative electrical charge. That can all be measured.
We need the Bohr models and it’s amendments to visualize what we are talking about. Those who indulge purely in math, without physical evidence, leave us with myths like the Big Bang theory, entanglement theory, black holes, space time, and time dilation. All products of the illusions created by the human mind.
Your problem seems to be that you have studied some quantum theory from a philosopher who BELIEVES that math is all there is. I don’t give a hoot what those theoreticians believe, I’ve had holes burned in my skin by electrons. I know they are real.
The orbit model may seem surreal, but it’s all we have. Quantum theory is an obfuscated adjunct to Newtonian physics, not a replacement for it. Some quantum theorists have done physics a huge disfavour by spreading the garbage that QM has replaced Newtonian physics.
bill…”All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, What are light quanta?. Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken.”
You have edited Einstein’s comment somewhat. He was speaking with reference to whether EM is a wave or quanta. Then he referred to Tom, Dick, and Harry as thinking they know the difference.
He was questioning whether light is a wave or made up of discrete particle. No knows as yet even though many people presume to know.
ball4…”You need only study the basics of quantum jumps in molecular spin and rotation modes to understand the vast majority of birth and death of photons in Earths atm. Gordon insists on electron level jumps being important in meteorology but they arent as energy for those levels is not available so not important in Earth atm. troposphere”.
What basics of quantum jumps don’t involve electrons?
There is no spin in molecules, only in the electrons which bonds the atoms into molecules. Spin applies only to electrons.
So, the energy levels are not available in the electrons and nucleii that make up nitrogen, oxygen, argon, CO2, and water vapour.
How the h*** do you think CO2 exists as a molecule? Have you gone completely daft?
Here is the CO2 molecule:
O====C====O
The dashed lines represent electron bonds wherein the electrons are constantly absorbing and emitting EM while jumping between those energy levels you claim do not exist in the atmosphere, and which are not important.
Molecules do not emit EM, or absorb it, it is the electrons that supply the bonds to create molecules that emit and absorb EM.
GR says:
Molecules do not emit EM, or absorb it, it is the electrons that supply the bonds to create molecules that emit and absorb EM
Wrong.
Gordon clearly hasn’t studied much quantum mechanics.
“What basics of quantum jumps don’t involve electrons?”
The vibration & rotational quantum jumps that are the main birth and death of photons in earth troposphere by spinning and vibrating air molecules. Basic 1st course meteorology of which Gordon has no knowledge.
Gordon, you need to read what I am saying more carefully. Granted my composition isn’t anything to brag about but I don’t see anything I said as contradicting anything you said, nor was I implying that there are no electrons or nucleii.
My focus is strictly on light quanta and what it is. You acknowledge the wave/particle problem and thats all I was speaking to.
It is fairly well acknowledged that we don’t fully understand how light works but just about everybody as Einstein points how has a little cartoonish movie in their minds about exactly how it works with little photons flying around in all directions. I am not even saying thats wrong. But what is wrong is using that little movie to imagine cold objects warming warmer objects.There is a real difference between the retention of heat and gaining heat.
“But what is wrong is using that little movie to imagine cold objects warming warmer objects.”
Nothing wrong with that Bill, Dr. Spencer’s experiments have shown data for added cold objects in the atm. warming warmer objects on the surface. Happens routinely fully consistent with 2LOT because it is a real process.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Svante:
Ball4:
We are talking strictly physics and not some pseudo physics.
If you feel that you have become physicists and expert at thermodynamics then I suggest you address your objections to G&T and see how you go. Eli or Halpern et al, Barry’s guru, got his butt kicked; you may fare better but I read it in the stars that you will have sore bums.
It should have been obvious that what you are objecting to are verbatim extracts from G&T. Have a go. Eli or Halpern was not prepared to so perhaps you feel you have more competence.
In the G&T paper, the authors do not ever define what is generally meant, or what they specifically mean, by the “atmospheric greenhouse effect”. The authors spend all of 99 pages writing an undefined term discussing what others in 205 references write & might mean. In their introduction 3.7.1:
“Unfortunately, the exact definition of the atmospheric greenhouse effect changes from audience to audience, that is, there are many variations of the theme.”
That is hardly original. The paper offers no new physics, not one original experiment, & nothing new or novel.
Passing a reputable college first course in meteorology is your better use of time in this field, these authors have not bothered to do so.
Ball4:
Other than showing you have not understood their paper you try to obfuscate with the very thing they complain about viz:
the non existence of a clear, falsifiable hypothesis.
Here:
G&T say in part :
that even today the atmospheric greenhouse effect” does not appear
– in any fundamental work on thermodynamics
– in any fundamental work on physical kinetics
– in any fundamental work on radiation theory
– that the definitions given in the literature beyond straight physics are very different and, partly, contradict each other.
They are even more pointed in the response to Halpern et al but I won’t bother digging it up.
Getting a grasp of the Scientific Method may help you a lot. That way we may avoid having you classifying the earth as waltzing in and out of open/closed systems. You will also be able to show us the solid surfaces in the sky whether they be green, blue or otherwise. That way you won’t find it necessary to offer gratuitous advice on studying Meteorology.
I repeat if you believe that you are more capable than Halpern then go for it and put your rebuttal to their work. After all it is a physics paper which has not been rebutted and which demolishes the GHG conjecture. One wonders why with talent like yours around.
ball4…”In the G&T paper, the authors do not ever define what is generally meant, or what they specifically mean, by the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
Duh!!! G&T claim there is no such effect, how could they explain what it means? In fact, your claim is exactly what G&T claimed about Halpern et al, that they don’t define what it means.
In fact, the authors use your 99 pages in an attempt to defeat the theory, and they do.
G&T are wrong.
Halpern’s paper very clearly defined terms, G&T paper does not define what they mean by GHE so their def. cannot be falsified as it doesn’t exist.
ball4…”Halperns paper very clearly defined terms, G&T paper does not define what they mean by GHE so their def. cannot be falsified as it doesnt exist.”
You still have it backwards, it was G&T who claimed Halpern et al did not define the meaning of the GHE.
DA – “G&T are wrong!”
Kind of like a drive by shooting.
But technically G&T aren’t wrong. Their contention was they could not find anywhere within the framework of physics anything that supported the greenhouse theory. Then they went item by item showing how each was inadequate.
Of course they could have missed something. However, mainstream science is still looking for what they may have missed.
Gordon, if you are correct it ought to be easy to post up G&T’s specific definition of their term “atmospheric greenhouse effect” from their paper to prove that I have it backwards & you (or others) would have already done so. No one will be be able to do so since it is Gordon that has it backwards.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
tonyM…”Getting a grasp of the Scientific Method may help you a lot”.
That would mean bally giving up his main theory that heat does not exist as a form of energy, that it is just a measure of ‘energy’. I have tried to convince him that temperature is a measure of that energy…thermal energy.
“G&T claim there is no such effect, how could they explain what it means?”
Exactly, G&T never define what they mean by GHE so the reader never learns what they mean when using the term.
“G&T say in part: that even today the atmospheric greenhouse effect does not appear..”
Correct, G&T’s “fictitious mechanism” term doesn’t appear anywhere in the literature because those accomplished sources study real, observed & experimental mechanisms in the weather & climate. You two have been completely take in by two charlatans writing 99 pages of stuff they skimmed in the ref.s while never having passed a college course in meteorology to demonstrate they understand their source material.
No experiments, no observations, nothing new or novel in G&T paper just 205 ref.s copied sometimes verbatim, you are better off passing an introductory college course in meteorology and defending that physics than defending what two charlatans in the field published.
Pistons and cylinders do not inhabit the atm. & neither do blue/green plates but they all can be very useful to teach basic atm. physics in such a course.
And Gordon, again temperature is avg. KE, thermodynamic internal (thermal) energy is total KE. There is a difference you continue to miss.
Ball4
If you could stop the balls rattling in your head long enough you might prevent yourself from rambling on about fiction. Conflating and obfuscating on your part about what and how G&T tackled the Science and Physics issues is of no relevance and does not diminish their conclusions. It is simply a diversionary ploy on your part to avoid the hard scrutiny of this field and very clearly highlights that you have no scientific rebuttal to the findings in their paper. That is not a great revelation and is virtually a given.
Halpern, who is a physicist, does at least understand the implications of this paper and went to great lengths with a team of people to try to rebut it.
But look if you feel you are up to the task you have a great opportunity here to set G&H straight:
1. State the clear, quantified, falsifiable hypothesis of “climate change”
2. Show the replicable, experimental evidence to support that hypothesis
That should be simple enough given that this field has been going for over 150 years. The world awaits your musings or will that be more rambling from you.
1. See the clear, quantified, falsifiable black line in Dr. Spencer’s last post.
2. The black line mean was 0.7C lower 75 years prior to 2013.
Ball4:
You must have had a full pachinko parlour of balls rattling around in your head to come up with that.
Let us assume that T can be averaged what have you found in point 1. A set of data points. That I imagine is supposed to be your hypothesis. And the world gasped at such intelligence.
Your garbled point 2 The black line mean was 0.7C lower 75 years prior to 2013. takes me back to 1938. Your steel balls were working overtime here for I can’t see that year. Even if I could there is no meaning I can attach to the mean of that line being 0.7C lower at that point.
Meaningless Ball4 garbage in same way that he thinks the earth gyrates between an open and closed system is it a tango or a waltz?
I won’t put an interpretation on what you are trying to say other than it looks like circular reasoning reminiscent of many experiments in Social Science. They use data to formulate an hypothesis statistically then test that hypothesis on the same data. I’m sure it may work well for pachinko heads but useless in real Physics.
“That I imagine..”
You are free to imagine anything tonyM, the measured natural data is there for your study. You will have to refer to Dr. Spencer’s papers to understand the black line in depth. A beginning meteorology text will also be helpful ref. for you.
More pachinko balls rattling in you head in an attempt to obfuscate and create diversions to cover you failure to clearly articulate any sound falsifiable hypothesis.
That you can talk of the mean of a point shows your lack of statistical capability. That you refer to the point of 1938 which does not exist in Dr Spencers graph merely confirms the pachinko balls in head syndrome.
Other than that you come across very clearly.
1938 was a bit prior to the UAH satellite era tonyM so of course it is not in Dr. Spencer’s graph. I gave you some credit to be able to figure that out, obviously that was too much credit.
For the black line ending ~1938 one has to use surface thermometer data for the prior years. This has been done and the answer to your question 2. stands:
2. The black line mean was 0.7C lower 75 years prior to 2013.
You have enough problems just being clear; stick to the simple principle.
As for black lines, there are no black lines in Dr Spencer’s post if you are referring to his monthly T data set graphic (at least not in terms of data or means). Similarly there is no 1938 year datum point and if it has been done it must be bouncing in your pachinko head.
You clearly don’t understand what a “mean” is and think it relates to a an end point without definition. Now you want to somehow join Dr Spencer’s data set to some unknown data set described only in your head and imagine we all see it. More pachinko steel balls rattling away; more confusion reigns.
All I asked for was:
1. State the clear, quantified, falsifiable hypothesis of “climate change”
2. Show the replicable, experimental evidence to support that hypothesis
You do see the word “clear?” Do try and understand it even if you don’t understand what a hypothesis is or grasp the Scientific Method.
It is apparent the answers are beyond tonyM’s ability to understand:
1. See the clear, quantified, falsifiable black line in Dr. Spencer’s last post.
2. The black line mean was 0.7C lower 75 years prior to 2013.
Ball bouncing Pachinko head is back and still can’t
1. State the clear, quantified, falsifiable hypothesis of “climate change”
2. Show the replicable, experimental evidence to support that hypothesis.
Pachinko balls bounce around endlessly in his head.
The clear answers to your questions, with no rambling as requested, remain the same tonyM, it is up to tonyM to make an effort at understanding the answers or remain in the dark. tonyM’s choice.
Still unable to formulate a clear falsifiable hypothesis and hence still no supporting evidence.
That is not unexpected as many more capable lights have tried and failed. Failure is excusable when pachinko balls keep rattling in his head.
I must say there is clear concern for his health apart from those balls in head syndrome; he could be colour blind. What else when Dr Roy’s T anomaly graph is in blue and the running centered 13 month average is red yet he keeps insisting there is a black line and a black mean in 1938. Yet no data points exist in Dr Roys graph; its those balls again.
Perhaps it is just his monochrome screen and he is not colour blind. That is to be hoped for. But nothing will fix his lack of knowledge on means and the Scientific Method.
correction:
Yet no data points exist in Dr Roys graph prior to 1979; its those balls again.
“Dr Roy’s T anomaly graph is in blue and the running centered 13 month average is red”
The blue dots are weather not climate. The 13month red line is the average of weather not climate. The black line at 0.0 anomaly is climate 1981 to 2010 (30-year calendar monthly means of weather data).
The mean of the data for black line was 0.7C lower ending in 1938. Given that Dr. Spencer’s data starts in 1979, tonyM should have realized by now that tonyM of course won’t find the previous black line in Dr. Spencer’s chart. It is evident tonyM hasn’t much background in this field to actually be able to credibly find the 1938 ending data. The answers remain even though tonyM can’t understand them:
1. See the clear, quantified, falsifiable black line in Dr. Spencers last post.
2. The black line mean was 0.7C lower 75 years prior to 2013.
B4’s first claim is that this black line represents the Climatology hypothesis and he repeats it:
1. See the clear, quantified, falsifiable black line in Dr. Spencer’s last post.
The horizontal black line at 0 (X axis) in Dr Spencer’s chart is the monthly zeroed means. There is nothing quantified in that graph about the actual T distribution or actual average monthly T for that line. It can say nothing more with reference to additional data except that this black baseline monthly average clearly covers the period from 1981 to 1910.
There is no falsifiable hypothesis in this as it is simply zeroed data of a monthly average for a specific period – an established fact. THAT black line will always be zero even if we extend it to the Roman period if data had been available on Dr Spencer’s data base or even in 1938.
He then asserts as evidence to support his errr “hypothesis” that the black line mean WAS 0.7C lower in 1938:
2. The black line mean was 0.7C lower 75 years prior to 2013.
NO!!! Nonsense that black line zeroed mean would be exactly the same and remain at zero and has nothing to do with 1938 or 2013. Furthermore he has claimed to splice some other database (unknown to us) onto Dr Roy’s graph which somehow confirms his hypothesis of what….a continued zero black line!!!!
For Ball to say this black line represents the hypothesis is beyond even pachinko heads.
Clearly he neither understands about means nor an anomaly nor that it is not appropriate to conflate and join two separate data sets created by different references and different methodologies and undisclosed by B4. In short he exhibits the qualities of a goose honking away to all and sundry.
It is possible for me to try and unravel some of his gooselike thinking but why bother when does such a marvellous job honking away.
“(Ball4)’s first claim is that this black line represents the Climatology hypothesis”
I do not claim that, I claim the answer to tonyM’s questions are:
1. See the clear, quantified, falsifiable black line in Dr. Spencer’s last post.
2. The black line mean was 0.7C lower 75 years prior to 2013.
So far tonyM has not unraveled or falsified anything to do with these answers. Therefore, they stand until tonyM can actually clearly, quantifiably falsify either answer.
My requests to B4 were:
1. State the clear, quantified, falsifiable hypothesis of “climate change”
2. Show the replicable, experimental evidence to support that hypothesis.
One imagines his numerical answers correspond to those numbers.
My analysis of his responses holds:
B4 does not understand the Scienfic Method. Further he neither understands about means nor an anomaly nor that it is not appropriate to conflate and join two separate data sets created by different references and different methodologies (totally undisclosed by B4).
In short he exhibits the qualities of a goose honking away to avoid facing these deficiencies.
tonyM response contains nothing clearly or quantifiably wrong with either answer.
Not even a good try tonyM, I do have to note again you really have found nothing clearly, quantifiably wrong with the answers to your questions. No falsification yet.
B4 shows no falsifiable hypothesis , clear quantifiable or othewise.
He fails there and hence fails to show supporting experimentation.
He honks a lot but no amount of honking on his part can create diversion or camouflage his lack of skills here.
“B4 shows no falsifiable hypothesis”
Of course not, tonyM makes that up as a strawman since all I showed was tonyM’s question answers with clear, quantified, falsifiable accurate statements which tonyM cannot falsify with clear, quantified statements after repeated attempts. tonyM is welcome to try yet again.
My request of B4 was to show:
1. State the clear, quantified, falsifiable hypothesis of “climate change”
2. Show the replicable, experimental evidence to support that hypothesis.
Now he admits he has not done that and asserts that I am creating a strawman. What sort of illogical goose admits to not answering the requests in a dozen posts and still believes he has a defensible position?
There can be no confusion that “Climate Change” refers to the IPCC definition. There is no doubt B4 has pretended all along to be answering my requests in matched number form as shown from B4’s comment extracts viz:
and the answer to your question 2. stands
1. See the clear, quantified, falsifiable black line in Dr. Spencers last post.
It is apparent the answers are beyond tonyMs ability to understand:
(followed by B4’s 1. and 2. answers)
The clear answers to your questions, with no rambling as requested, remain the same
The answers remain “
Now B4 clearly states he was not answering those questions.
It is hard not to think that B4 is just a liar. Perhaps it it just the loose balls in his head. Perhaps he just does not understand that a set of observations is NOT a hypothesis.
Whatever, he is certainly a time waster and can’t answer my requests by his own admission.
tonyM yet again replies with no clear, quantified, falsifiable rebuttal to my answers. So my answers stand unchallenged. Having failed to do so repeatedly, it is clear tonyM does not know the definition of any of the terms: clear, quantified, or falsifiable. tonyM does not even understand the answers to his own questions. Make no mistake tonyM the clear, quantified, and falsifiable answers are – use dictionary.com:
1. See the clear, quantified, falsifiable black line in Dr. Spencer’s last post.
2. The black line mean was 0.7C lower 75 years prior to 2013.
To prove tonyM does understand the terms, tonyM will need to post actually clear, quantifiable, falsifiable rebuttals. So far tonyM has not come close to doing so (a remarkable inability) but there is every hope tonyM can learn to do so, dictionary.com will be helpful.
Poor Ball4; in a state of total confusion. He claims to have answered my requests and then admits that he has not.
Schizophrenia, cognitive dissonance or who knows what afflicts him. Whatever, his obfuscation amounts to nought.
He make a habit of these on/off scenarios just like he suggested the earth gyrates through an open and closed system ; a thermodynamic waltz.
His Pachinko Parlor head has been working overtime in this exchange; shiny metal balls flying everywhere but never a coherent response can one get.
Still no falsifiable hypothesis from B4 whether clear, quantified or otherwise. That is to be expe